Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Productivity and Economic Growth: East Midlands
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered productivity and economic growth in the East Midlands.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I want to start by telling you, as someone from London, about how great the east midlands is. Home to Derbyshire, Leicestershire, most of Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland, we are central to the country’s logistics network, with fantastic facilities such as Magna Park in Lutterworth, Daventry international rail freight terminal and, of course, the UK’s largest freight airport at East Midlands airport. We have deep industrial roots, with space engineering expertise in Leicester, biomedical sciences clusters in Nottingham, and nuclear and rail engineering proficiency in Derby.
We have a range of excellent universities, from Loughborough and Nottingham to Lincoln and Northampton, all of which have produced fantastic start-ups. We are home to major energy projects and developers, such as STEP Fusion, the world-leading fusion energy programme, and great British businesses such as Derby’s Rolls-Royce, which was selected as the preferred bidder to partner with Great British Energy to develop small modular reactors.
In short, our region’s potential is obvious to anybody who cares to look, yet despite our having 5.1 million people, 403,000 businesses and a fabulous location in the heart of the UK, today’s debate is likely to repeat messages that I know have been said many times in this place: that the east midlands is under-recognised, under-appreciated and still does not receive its fair share of UK Government investment.
That points to a national policy failure that the Labour Government must at long last address via a long-term commitment to four things: backing our region across all Whitehall Departments; sustained levels of public investment, to correct historical injustices; further devolution, to empower local communities across our region; and a coherent set of tailored policy interventions that will turn the page on a sustained sense of managed decline for many parts of our region for over 40 years. I hope we will hear those things from the Minister today.
Having led a local authority in Nottinghamshire before coming to this place, I know that the east midlands is often forgotten. Indeed, on three key criteria we remain on the wrong side of important UK averages: our median earnings are below the UK average, our unemployment is above the UK average, and our productivity is significantly below the UK average, at just 84.8% in 2023.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate; he is making a name for himself in the House for raising issues that affect his constituency, and I congratulate him on that. There are lessons here for all parts of the United Kingdom, so I thank him for raising this topic. Given that manufacturing alone supports almost one in 10 jobs in Northern Ireland, does the hon. Gentleman agree that strengthening regional productivity—whether in the east midlands, Northern Ireland or anywhere in the UK—depends on supporting advanced manufacturing, skills and supply chains across the whole of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Always better together—let that be our motto.
James Naish
The hon. Member is absolutely right: there are fantastic advanced manufacturing capabilities across the country, including in the east midlands, and the supply chain and the skills chain are key to making them thrive. I will come on to skills in the east midlands in a moment.
Ahead of the comprehensive spending review last year, the all-party parliamentary group for the east midlands launched an inquiry into regional priorities. We received 34 written submissions and held an oral evidence session here in Westminster, with contributions from local government, business, infrastructure, skills and other sectors. This work was about trying to distil, from the people who know our region the best, what the most serious barriers to boosting economic growth and productivity are, and about determining what practical steps the Government should take to address them.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about our region and the help it needs. Does he agree that for our region to do well, we need more devolution—including where I am in Leicestershire—as he has in his county? Is he pleased that the Government set out in the investment strategy that more money has to come to our region, which receives two and a half times less money for transport spending—or used to? Finally, does my hon. Friend agree that local leaders on the brilliant councils in my region, who are doing a great job, need even more powers to help to ensure that our region can grow, thrive and prosper?
James Naish
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I have already mentioned the need for greater devolution. Of course, in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire we are seeing the dividends of that under Claire Ward, but I appreciate that Leicestershire still has some way to go to get the equivalent devolution. I absolutely support my hon. Friend’s call.
Before I share the recommendations of the APPG inquiry, I should say that I hope the Minister recognises that the inquiry’s very existence shows that we are serious about growth as a region. What is more, over the past 25 years we have delivered 35,000 more homes than our counterparts in the west midlands, even though the west midlands has a population that is about 20% larger. We are clearly taking our growth responsibilities seriously locally, yet despite that housing growth, transport spend per head in the region has fallen to just 54% of the UK average. That is not just slightly below, but 54% of the average—the lowest level of any UK region or nation. Rail funding per head is just over 40% of the UK average, and only around a third of the level seen in the west midlands.
The gaps have not emerged overnight: they are the product of choices over many years, under Governments of different colours, and they have had real consequences, shaping whether businesses grow, whether local labour markets function properly and whether people—my constituents—can access high-quality job opportunities. In short, inadequate investment has suppressed our region’s true potential. That is why the APPG inquiry was conducted. I place on the record my thanks to everyone who contributed to it. I believe its conclusions were fair and grounded, and we will make sure that the Minister receives a copy of the report.
The inquiry came to five primary conclusions. First, unsurprisingly, it suggested that the Government need actively to rebalance public investment, especially in transport, so that it better reflects housing and employment growth potential and delivery. I wholeheartedly welcome the Treasury’s Green Book being updated, but that in itself will not correct historical imbalances that must be addressed if we want places like the east midlands to maximise their potential. There is a genuine need for overcorrection.
Secondly, the APPG inquiry recommended that we pilot enhanced local employment hubs across the east midlands, devolving skills, careers and business support in a way that genuinely reflects local labour markets. One of the strongest themes in the evidence received by the inquiry was frustration with the fragmentation of the skills system. There are too many pots of money, too many separate agencies, too much inconsistency and too little flexibility, all of which hamper growth and productivity.
Thirdly, the inquiry recommended that we should expand women’s health hubs across the region, given the relatively poor life expectancy of women in too many parts of the east midlands. All genders and all age groups must contribute to closing the east midlands growth and productivity gaps, and targeted interventions will be required to realise that.
Fourthly, the inquiry recommended that the east midlands should play a central role in the country’s net zero transition, given its historical role powering millions of homes and businesses across the UK. Linked to that was the call made by more than 30 MPs to finally electrify the midland main line to Sheffield, which has sadly become a byword in our region for slow, uneven and stop-start infrastructure investment into a really important part of the country.
Fifthly, the inquiry suggested that the Government should reform how flood resilience funding is targeted so that it reflects social need and repeated risk, rather than underlying land values. Flooding can sometimes seem like a subject separate from growth and productivity, but in the east midlands, which has the greatest share of properties at risk of flooding from rivers or the sea of any English region, it is very much part of the same conversation. If we want growth, if we want to boost investor confidence, and if we want housing delivery and economic resilience, flood adaptation and mitigation are not optional extras. They must be seen as enablers for economic growth as well as for protecting food and energy security, which our region provides in abundance, especially in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire.
Together, the recommendations show that the east midlands is not looking for a silver bullet. Indeed, there is not one—although I will briefly put on the record the need for junction 24 of the M1 to be upgraded as a strategic priority for our road network.
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Does he agree that one way to redress the historical imbalance in transport spending is for a green light to be given to the fourth Trent crossing, which would link my constituency to his beautiful constituency of Rushcliffe? It would unlock economic growth and bring forward new jobs, crucially it would help with emergency planning in one of the biggest cities in the country, and it would be great for our region.
James Naish
On Friday, I was part of a conversation about the potential impact of the Trent sports quarter on Rushcliffe, and Nottingham Forest’s expanded City Ground proposal. The fact that we have only three crossings across the Trent came up several times, so I absolutely support my hon. Friend in that call for a fourth crossing.
Rather than a silver bullet, the east midlands needs a serious, joined-up approach to growth because infrastructure, skills, health, clean energy and climate resilience—the five points that I just raised—are not separate conversations. They all need serious consideration to determine whether our region can fulfil its potential in powering the national economy.
Let me be clear: the east midlands does not lack growth prospects. On the contrary, it is full of them—I know colleagues will make the case for their local areas. The question is whether our regional and national policy frameworks are agile enough and, more pertinently, fair enough to support those growth prospects. I do not believe they are. That is why we are here on our region’s behalf once again to call for a fairer settlement and a serious attempt to remove the structural blockers that are holding us back. We need the Government, who were overwhelmingly backed by voters across the region, to look at how poorly the east midlands is currently treated and to finally act to address that.
I hope the Minister will address a few points directly. First, does she accept that the east midlands has for too long received a persistently unfair share of transport and infrastructure investment? Secondly, does she accept that that acts as a material drag on our local economy? Thirdly, will she confirm what steps the Government are taking to ensure that investment decisions are better aligned with the scale of housing and employment growth that is already being delivered in our region? Fourthly, is she willing to take seriously, along with other Departments, the APPG’s recommendations on the need for tailored local employment hubs and women’s health hubs?
Finally, will the Minister give the House some reassurances that the east midlands will not be told once again that its time will come? Too many people in my constituency of Rushcliffe, and across our region, have heard that before, and have sadly formed the view that the east midlands is important, but not important enough—that it is valued in theory, but not in practice. I refuse to accept that, and I am sure that many colleagues present refuse to accept it as well.
The east midlands is a region of makers, exporters, innovators and workers. We are home to strategic industries, nationally significant infrastructure and major universities. We have delivered homes, created jobs, powered the country for generations and shown ambition. What we need now is for the Government to match our potential and ambition with commitment and action.
I will repeat the four things I mentioned earlier. The Government must commit, first, to back our region across all Whitehall Departments, working together; secondly, to sustained levels of public investment to address the historical inadequacies I have talked about; thirdly, to further devolving and empowering local communities across our region, giving them more powers; and fourthly, to creating a coherent set of tailored policy interventions, which will turn the page on 40 years of perceived managed decline. These four things cannot come a day too soon for the east midlands. I look forward to hearing colleagues’ contributions, followed by the Minister’s response.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. Can everyone who wants to speak stand so that we can calculate the time limit? It is going to be three-minutes, I am afraid. I call Ed Argar to set an exemplary example.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I am grateful to my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate, and I look forward to welcoming him to my constituency later this week. I agree with much of what he said, particularly about flooding.
This is one debate in which I can argue from the Back Bench, without fear of contradiction, that the east midlands is the best region in the entire country—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] This may be the only time I get such consensus on both sides of the House. As the hon. Member set out, we have all the core ingredients. We have a central location; we have good transport links, although they need to be better; we have great universities; we have great skills. Most importantly, we have great businesses and we have great people with ambition.
The potential is clear but, as the hon. Member said, our region all too often appears to lose out. Perhaps that is because we are not demonstrative and we do not always shout about things. When it comes to funding for infrastructure or for our local authorities, the facts are clear. My local authority in Leicestershire has the lowest per-head funding in the country. Previous council leaders and councillors such as Deborah Taylor and Nick Rushton have fought hard to address that. We need fairer funding for our county.
Network North was due to bring more money to Leicestershire. Among other things, that would potentially have helped to fund the completion of the Melton Mowbray distributor road. Sadly, when the Government announced the new funding, that was taken away. One challenge we face is that when the Government direct funding to our area, they all too often favour those areas with mayoral authorities, rather than counties without one, such as Leicestershire.
Melton and Syston has a limited number of big businesses, but a lot of small and rural businesses. They are the bedrock of our local economy, but they face barriers to growing, including issues with public transport, with attracting people to work and with the ability to travel. The impact of national insurance increases and business rates in town centres, particularly for rural businesses and shops, makes it challenging for them to expand as they would wish to. A key challenge, as the hon. Member set out clearly, is in working together not only to deliver on our ambitions, but to break down the barriers to securing the additional investment bid for the A52, the A46 or even local roads and transport. We also need to break down the regulatory and taxation barriers that stop so many fantastic businesses growing and expanding.
There is huge potential in our region, in my county of Leicestershire and in my Melton and Syston constituency. We need those barriers broken down and investment put in to ensure that that potential is unleashed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. One of the displays is defunct, so it may be difficult for Members to see when their three minutes have ended. I will signal 30 seconds before their time runs out.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing this important debate. I welcome a debate on productivity and economic growth in the east midlands, because it is a region with extraordinary potential, but for far too long that potential has been under-realised. Nowhere is that more evident than in Derby.
Derby is a city that helped to power the industrial revolution. The River Derwent, which runs through our city, once powered the mills that transformed Britain’s economy. Today, Derby remains at the heart of Britain’s industrial strength. We are home to globally significant engineering and manufacturing industries, from aerospace to rail, with thousands of highly skilled workers who design, build and maintain some of the most advanced technology in the world—technology that is crucial to this Government’s industrial strategy.
For years, however, under Conservative mismanagement, deindustrialisation and chronic under-investment, regional disparities have meant that our region has not fulfilled its potential. Nowhere is that clearer than in transport. The east midlands received a lower level of spending per person than any other region. If our region had received just the UK average across the five years between 2019 and 2024, we would have had an additional £10 billion. That is billions’ worth of missing rail connections and bus services that would have connected people to work, training and opportunities.
We cannot talk about economic growth without discussing investment in the skills that drive productivity. Derby is a city of makers, and we are known for our skilled workforce, but even in Derby it is clear that additional investment in our skills is essential. At the Nuclear Skills Academy, Rolls-Royce and the University of Derby are already delivering 200 apprenticeships a year, but there is so much appetite for good skills to deliver good jobs. I believe that Great British Railways, which will have its headquarters in Derby, can and should be an important vehicle for the skills that we need. We can also see that appetite at Derby’s university technical college, which has specialisms in engineering and life sciences. There were 450 applicants for just 100 places. If we are to deliver what we need and deliver what Team Derby foresees—good jobs, regeneration and skills—we need to ensure that we are investing in our future.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this debate. As my colleagues have mentioned, the east midlands is an absolutely fantastic region with great cities, towns and villages, a fantastic location and the most fundamental thing: wonderful people.
I will give a quick anecdote. Ten years ago, my team, Leicester City, stood at the top of the premiership. We were about to be crowned the champions of England. It was a fairytale. Ten years later, we sit at the bottom of the championship, about to go into league one. That is what happens when we take our eye off the ball: lack of investment, lack of strategy, and taking things for granted.
Much has already been said about the region, and others will say more, but in my short time today I will focus on two things. The first is the manufacturing industry. Leicester was once known for clothing the world, and even today it supports 11,000 jobs in garment manufacturing and retains the rare ability to produce garments end to end in a single city. The capability and skills are there, but unfortunately the investment is not. Businesses face growing skills shortages, particularly in the manufacturing and digital sectors, with vacancies rising by over 150% in recent years.
I ask the Minister three simple questions. First, when will the Government address the clear imbalance in infrastructure and transport funding in the east midlands? Considerably less is spent on transport there than in the west midlands; in fact, compared with Birmingham, it is less than half. Secondly, what more will be done to close the skills gap, particularly through vocational training and apprenticeships aligned to local industry? Thirdly, will the Government use public procurement more strategically, particularly in the defence and NHS supply chains, to support British manufacturing in regions such as Leicester?
The east midlands does not lack potential. What it lacks is parity and equity. With fair investment and targeted support, it can once again be a driving force for UK growth.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this incredibly important debate.
My colleagues will all agree that the east midlands is a region with so much to offer. We have two local mayoral authorities, which are fantastic for their areas, but we do not have one for Leicestershire. We do not have the strategic single voice or the powers that devolution brings. The only way to ensure that our constituents thrive in the long term is to ensure that the east midlands thrives together.
Historically, the region had some formal structures such as the regional development agency and regional assemblies. Those have long gone, but we need to consider where we go from here to get a single organisation that focuses on growth for the east midlands. Today we have a much more fragmented approach, and I cannot help worrying that that is a barrier to long-term productivity and growth.
My North West Leicestershire constituency alone employs 20,000 people in the logistics sector, partly because we have the second-largest freight airport in the UK: East Midlands airport, which operates like a 24/7 logistics hub. I am proud to say that exports through the airport, predominantly in sectors such as advanced manufacturing and aerospace, are nearly double the UK airport average.
Alongside that hub, we have the only inland freeport, with a freeport site across Leicestershire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. The plan for freeports was to have high-quality advanced manufacturing, which is key to building new jobs in the growth sectors identified in the industrial strategy, aligning with the demand for export growth. However, what has been proposed for the Leicestershire site has created considerable concern for my community. To maximise growth and opportunity, we have to take our communities with us.
One of the barriers to growth in the east midlands, as has been mentioned, is transport. Spending per head is 54% of the UK average. What does that mean for my constituency? It means that our bus provision is unreliable, and we do not have passenger rail anywhere. In January, I led a debate on the Ivanhoe line, a disused passenger rail line that is completely intact from Burton to Coalville, and would connect two of the largest towns in the country to the rail network of Coalville and Castle Gresley on the edge of Swadlincote. Just imagine what that could do.
It feels as though North West Leicestershire, in the centre of the east midlands, is sitting on a bundle of incredible possibility. My constituency is the heart of the national forest, which is today celebrating the planting of its 10-millionth tree. This year also marks the 30th year of the National Forest Company, which has been working with North West Leicestershire district council to transform the industrial landscape for nature, people and enterprise.
North West Leicestershire and the east midlands are not short of ambition or opportunity. We would greatly appreciate the opportunity to work with the Minister to ensure that the east midlands is talked about not simply as a place for opportunity, but as a powerhouse for growth.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing this important debate. He referred to most of Lincolnshire in his opening remarks, but I represent the bit of Leicestershire that is not, in official government terms, part of the east midlands, even though we have the East Midlands ambulance service. We are in no man’s land. We have the Northern Lincolnshire and Goole hospital trust; we are under Humberside police; and the integrated care board—well, that wanders all over the place. My question to the Minister is “Should that continue?”
We now have the Greater Lincolnshire Mayor and a combined authority, which play an important part in developing economic strategies and so on. Equally, I recognise that the Humber estuary plays an important part, particularly in energy. I am sure that there are ways to combine that with playing our part in the east midlands.
Reference has already been made to the A46. I remind Members that that road continues to Cleethorpes and is important to access to the south Humber industrial sector. We have the Humber freeports; I remind Members that Immingham is the largest port in the country, measured by tonnage. I have 10 railway stations in my constituency, but I do not have a direct train service to London. I have been campaigning for one ever since I arrived in this place in 2010. We have an international airport at Humberside that could play a much more important part in developing the economy of the area. As for railways, mention has been made of Sheffield and the slow services down the midland main line and so on. The first railway to reach my constituency was the MSLR—the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire railway—which was referred to at the time as “mucky, slow and late”, so this is nothing new.
My plea to the Minister is that she give a commitment in her response to looking at our place in government terms. Should we be part of the east midlands? I think perhaps we should. Equally, I recognise the importance of the Humber estuary and the links to the north bank of the Humber.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with respect to Rolls-Royce.
I have said it before, and I will say it again: in Derby we are a proud city of makers. We have more Elizabeth line trains on the production line at Alstom. We have Rolls-Royce aerospace and nuclear powering today, and our next generation, in the skies and at sea. We have a brilliant community of over 6,000 small and medium-sized enterprises such as Huub and Mercian Cycles, which I joined yesterday in supporting Greg James as he passed through Derby on Radio 1’s “Longest Ride”.
Our local economy is full steam ahead, powering our region, our nation and, indeed, the world. With Derbyshire having more than double the national average number of people employed in advanced manufacturing, the talent in our city and region keeps our country moving and safeguards our national security. In recent years, the Government have committed to backing the city’s capabilities. Last year, the Ministry of Defence confirmed £9 billion of funding for Rolls-Royce through the Unity contract to deliver the next generation of AUKUS nuclear submarines, creating up to 1,000 jobs and safeguarding 4,000 more.
Recently, I welcomed the Railways Bill, which will let us crack on with making Derby the home of Great British Railways and setting up its headquarters in the heart of our city centre. Whether it is trains, planes or reactors for advanced nuclear submarines, we are proud of what we make in Derby, but for far too long our residents have not felt that benefit in the home of UK manufacturing. Our city is powering advanced manufacturing, but at the same time the majority of kids in Arboretum—where I was born—are growing up in poverty.
We build the trains that keep our country moving, but our region has consistently had the lowest transport investment of any nation or region. When industry in our city grows, residents rightly expect to share the benefits of that growth. That is why, backed by this Government and our brilliant mayor, Claire Ward, we are cracking on with setting up Team Derby. That is also thanks to the enormous help of the Minister here today. Through Team Derby, we will ensure that every single pound of investment flowing into our city works as hard as possible to deliver for the people of our city.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I congratulate my fellow Nottinghamshire MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), for securing the debate.
My Sherwood Forest constituency is proudly rural, consisting of market towns, villages, farms, small businesses, local pubs and visitor attractions. Those communities are full of talent, ambition and hard-working people, but for far too long they have been neglected. Fourteen years of Conservative Governments did little to support the productivity and economic growth of rural communities like mine.
Nowhere is the neglect clearer than in public transport. For many rural villages bus services are inconsistent at best, with some having just a single bus to serve their community. Others require residents to take multiple buses to simply travel across the constituency. In many other areas, it is a bus desert. At a coffee morning I held in Farnsfield at the weekend, I met Oliver Asher, a young man in my constituency who has mapped the bus provision in Nottinghamshire. There is a stark difference between 2014 and now. There is no clearer evidence of the under-investment in and neglect of such areas of the east midlands.
Public transport is not a luxury in rural communities, but a lifeline. A young person who cannot reliably reach a college place, an apprenticeship or a first job risks being lost. Weak connections limit the ambitions of our young people and the productivity of our communities, but when people can travel easily, affordably and reliably, we unlock opportunity.
Currently, there are more than 4,000 children living in poverty in Sherwood Forest. Parts of the constituency, a former coalfield community, are some of the most deprived areas of the country. Those people have never recovered from the decimation of their livelihoods, and that loss of potential continues a cycle of poverty and deprivation.
It is vital that we connect rural communities to towns and cities such as Mansfield, Newark and Nottingham city, where many educational institutions and employment opportunities are based. As Oliver, the young person from Farnsfield, told me, people in our villages need bus routes that actually work for them.
If we are serious about removing barriers to opportunity and unlocking the potential of the east midlands, we must invest in reliable public transport. Of course, that must go hand in hand with protecting our green belt and embracing our future in a way that respects biodiversity and ensures that every one of my constituents can access the outdoors and the natural spaces that define our communities. Where a person grows up should not determine how far they can go. We have a duty to build connections that make that real. No young person’s future and wellbeing should be limited by a failing transport network.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing the debate.
Many in Amber Valley—including me—are proud descendants of coalminers, textile makers and engineers. That heritage still shapes our economy: 20% of the workforce are in manufacturing, mining and utilities. Amber Valley’s industrial history, national significance and visitor offer are currently underdeveloped, but I am working hard to change that through my visitor economy strategy.
A thriving visitor economy will boost footfall, inject money into hospitality and support local businesses and high streets. I am therefore delighted that my three towns of Alfreton, Heanor and Ripley have come together to submit a joint bid to the UK town of culture competition in recognition of their remarkable shared story. My visitor economy work complements that of East Midlands Mayor Claire Ward, whose vision for growth projects an additional £960 million in direct gross value added for the region and £730 million indirectly through the visitor economy.
No discussion of Amber Valley’s heritage and economy is complete without mentioning the Denby Pottery Company. Founded in 1809, it has made stoneware in Derbyshire since the industrial revolution. It is the constituency’s largest employer: about 350 of its 500 staff are local, and many have worked there for decades. As a tourist attraction, Denby Pottery Village brings in more than 250,000 visitors a year.
However, as Members know, the company has filed a notice of intention to appoint administrators, which is devastating news for staff facing uncertainty about their livelihoods. I have spoken to the GMB union, and I encourage colleagues to support any affected constituents. I have also met Denby’s leadership and ensured engagement with the Department for Business and Trade, and I remain in contact with the Treasury and the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald).
Although the news may feel sudden, the truth is that the UK ceramics industry has been hit by sharp and unpredictable swings in energy prices, and the impact of new trading arrangements and global tariff pressures have hampered competitiveness. We hope that an investor will come forward to secure a future for the business, as it is hugely important to save the company. I urge Ministers to expand the British industry supercharger scheme, as very few ceramics companies currently qualify.
Amber Valley contains some of the most deprived areas in Derbyshire. People know that they have been overlooked and left behind for years, and a much-loved employer going into administration, putting 500 jobs at risk, compounds that belief. Bringing pride in place back to communities such as mine is absolutely essential, so will the Minister outline what more can be done for Amber Valley and how she will work with colleagues across Government to support Denby Pottery?
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq.
We must confront honestly the challenge of productivity in the east midlands remaining well below the UK average, currently at around 85% of it. Our constituents’ wages reflect that gap entirely, and if we are serious about raising living standards in the region, we have to close it. Investment drives productivity, enabling businesses to purchase better equipment, adopt new technologies and expand production. Such investment is not an abstract concept for my constituents and their wages.
Transport is a clear example. For too long, the east midlands has been under-invested in compared with other regions. Transport spending per head is shockingly now only around 54% of the UK average, which is the lowest of any region in the nation. That matters. Transport is not a luxury, but the infrastructure that allows firms to move goods, people to reach jobs and businesses to operate efficiently. Investment in skills is also critical, and my constituency is fortunate to have great educational institutions. On a broader structural point, public investment in the UK follows behind private investment, in great contrast to other European countries, particularly Germany.
We must recognise that economic growth should be spread across the country. Our national conversation too often focuses on a small number of already prosperous areas, such as Oxford, London and Cambridge. Those places are important, but economic growth has to go further. If we get this right, by combining public sector ambition with strategic private investment in infrastructure, transport and skills, places like my constituency of Mansfield, as well as other communities in north Nottinghamshire and right across the region, can play a central role in driving our future economic growth.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing the debate, and colleagues across the House for their contributions. For too long, the east midlands was left behind: abandoned by a post-1980s, neoliberal, globalisation-driven economic consensus and forgotten by a conservative, austere Treasury logic that struggled to bring itself to invest in London, let alone in medium-sized towns in the east midlands. I am glad that that paradigm is finally changing.
The first blast furnace at the former Stanton ironworks in my constituency was lit at the dawn of the industrial revolution, but in 2007 it went out for the final time. Hundreds of jobs were lost, and Ilkeston became a post-industrial town. However, New Stanton Park now grows every day, and Italian manufacturer Fassa Bortolo recently chose Ilkeston as the location for their first factory in Britain. Jobs are returning and investment is coming, which is welcome.
However, it is important to note that new developments spark anxiety. Derbyshire was recently ranked as having the worst roads in England: the local road network was not designed to handle so much pressure, and failures at junction 25 of the M1 bring traffic to a standstill for miles. The old ironworks was linked to the railway by a rail spur, and although that infrastructure still exists, it will take a lot more time and money to bring it back into use. Getting the freight from New Stanton Park on to the railway would be an enormous win for local people in my constituency, for our roads and for the environment.
Alongside work on that, I have been campaigning for a junction 25a on the M1, designed to service Stanton. I have met Ministers and Highways England, and even sat down and found complete common ground with my local council’s Conservative group leader, Councillor Wayne Major. Ultimately, it would take a minimum of several years and tens of millions of pounds for that project to happen, but it is really important to get it working for our local community. For that, we need the Government, and I am grateful for the changes to the Treasury Green Book to make infrastructure upgrades outside London more acceptable. I am also extremely excited about the £2 billion that the Chancellor committed to transport in the east midlands, and to see how Claire, our brilliant mayor, will spend that money.
I want to stress that in Erewash, we have not just a strong industrial history but a growing industrial present. People want jobs; they want investment; they want economic growth—but that needs to come with proper, long-term, serious infrastructure commitments. Growth leads to work for local people, not just around them. They need to know that it benefits them, not just the mega-rich chief executive officers. Part of that is making sure that we have proper investment in infrastructure to make people’s lives better and more productive.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq.
The east midlands has been a driver of Britain’s economic growth since at least the earliest days of the industrial revolution. Belper in my constituency was the world’s first factory town; it spun cotton for textiles at a previously unimaginable rate, and that model was exported around the world. Now, our region hosts advanced manufacturing, cutting-edge technology and world-class research. Colleagues have touched on that and, as time is short, I will not go into it any further.
However, our region faces significant challenges. Housing costs and low wages mean that many young people are stuck renting or living with their parents well beyond the time when they would have liked to move out. That is why I am very pleased to lend my support to the regeneration of the Belper mills, a significant series of historical buildings integral to the Derwent valley UNESCO world heritage site. Bringing heritage buildings like that back online—with 130 homes, in this case—and making them work for the community is essential. When such assets are also used to grow the visitor economy, as we are seeking to do in Belper, the economic returns are multiplied.
To deliver that, we must ensure that we have the craftspeople to bring the buildings back into use. The technical excellence colleges for construction that are being established, including in Derby, must ensure that there is training in heritage building techniques and planning so that we have the skills to revive these valuable assets. Doing so not only benefits the economy and the people that it serves, but helps people understand our shared national story. It brings people together in engaging with the past and celebrating beautiful architecture that truly builds pride in place at a time when society feels increasingly fractured.
A second challenge for the region is the under-investment it has suffered in its public transport. The east midlands has consistently been the least funded region, but helping people to get around, whether for work or leisure or to access public services or education, is key to economic growth. The Labour Government have made a good start on that through initiatives such as the £2 billion for public transport that they have allocated to Mayor Claire Ward. I want to see a good chunk of that money spent in rural and semi-rural communities, of which there are many in Derbyshire, where bus services are insufficient. The issue of public transport in rural and semi-rural areas is highlighted in the Labour rural research group’s latest report, “Rural Poverty in Britain”, and I strongly recommend that Ministers take the time to look at that publication.
I am also keen to see the Government bring forward plans to electrify the remaining section of the midland main line, which was first mooted in the 1970s but has been kicked into the long grass numerous times. That would reduce carbon emissions and costs over the long term while delivering improved reliability and shorter travel times. It might also enable more services to stop in Belper, Duffield and Spondon. Given that Derby is the home of the railways, it is not acceptable that no electric trains run through the city.
The east midlands is not just about Britain’s past; it is integral to its future, and when it succeeds, Britain succeeds. I hope the Minister has gathered plenty of insights to take forward with colleagues so that our region can truly achieve all that it has the potential to do.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing the debate.
In Derbyshire Dales, we quarry the stone used to build new homes, produce the cement that keeps our buildings standing and have the outstanding natural landscapes that support a vibrant visitor economy. Derbyshire produces 85% of the UK’s limestone, and that raw material is essential for construction, infrastructure and manufacturing industries across the UK. However, as my hon. Friends have said, the east midlands’ economic growth has been held back by decades of under-investment. I therefore strongly welcome the £2 billion of transport funding for the East Midlands combined county authority, which should, in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire at least, start to redress the balance.
Two transport-related projects in particular highlight the need for additional investment. Today, there is no direct train line from Derby, Nottingham or Leicester to Manchester. The map of the rail network has a Matlock-to-Buxton-sized hole in it, meaning that people from the cities of the east midlands have to travel via Stoke or Sheffield to get to Manchester. Reinstating that line would act as a catalyst for economic growth and increase productivity across our region. It would deliver major economic gains, connect tourism hotspots such as Bakewell to the rail network, and connect places such as Matlock and Matlock Bath to Manchester. It would bring major benefits for young people looking for work or education, for the transportation of freight from our quarries, for the millions of tourists coming to the area for its hospitality offer, for regional connectivity, and for small businesses that would warmly welcome commuting employees. We wait in anticipation of the Manchester and East Midlands Rail Action Partnership’s feasibility study, which we expect by the end of this month.
Aside from transport, there are other projects that would deliver major economic benefits. Peak Cluster based in the Hope valley is the world’s largest cement decarbonisation project and has the potential to decarbonise 40% of the UK’s cement and lime production. The project would safeguard our cement industry for generations to come, support over 13,000 jobs and attract £5 billion of private investment. I urge the Government to provide a clear route to market for carbon capture and storage projects beyond track 1 and track 2 clusters.
If we do secure the future of our cement and lime industry through carbon capture, which in turn will help to build the 1.5 million homes, there will be even more freight, much of it coming through the town of Ashbourne. The lack of a relief road has been a problem for decades. Already, around 700 heavy goods vehicles a day pass through the town, which causes major road safety issues and results in levels of air pollution above the legal limit. The Government have set ambitious housing targets. To deliver them, we need to support our industries and provide them with the infrastructure they need to thrive, but we also need to protect our residents. All we ask is for the playing field to be levelled.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. It is bitterly disappointing that Reform could not be bothered to field a single MP to come and stand up for the east midlands in this debate about productivity and economic growth in the region. People need to be careful what they vote for if they want people who will stand up for them.
The east midlands is my home, and I am proud to say that there are Members of Parliament present who represent places that my family and friends live, which is wonderful. We have always been a region of makers, builders and innovators. Our communities were forged in the industrial revolution, and in South Derbyshire they were built on coal and clay. In fact, it is still possible to buy the iconic TG Green blue-and-white-striped Cornishware. I think almost every grandparent had one of the famous mixing bowls, which are brown on the outside and white on the inside.
Across the constituency, we have businesses innovating, creating jobs and driving growth for the wider regional economy. At the heart of that is advanced manufacturing, and Toyota Motor Manufacturing UK in Burnaston remains one of the most significant automotive plants in the country, supporting more than 3,000 jobs and anchoring a wider supply chain across the region. South Derbyshire is also well placed to benefit from the opportunities created by the east midlands freeport, which aims to attract high-value industries and businesses that are focused on science, technology, engineering and maths.
A strong skills pipeline will be essential to that success. We need our two new schools—New House Farm and Spencer academy—and I hope that my letter to the Department for Education, which contains data and evidence demonstrating why it must ensure backing for the schools, is taken heed of. We await a decision. I was delighted to attend the opening of the green skills academy of Burton and South Derbyshire college, which is driving sustainability in construction and retrofit and teaching people how to install heat pumps and solar panels. That brings me to the fact that we have more than our fair share of planning applications for battery energy storage systems and solar farms, which helps us make the case for the importance of having a local area energy plan.
Our economy is driven not just by large global employers; small and medium-sized enterprises across South Derbyshire are also innovating and creating opportunity, and I am forever grateful to our farmers for feeding us. South Derbyshire contributes strongly to the region’s visitor economy too: National Trust’s Calke abbey attracts visitors from across the country and Mercia marina is the largest inland marina in Europe. Our district is one of the fastest growing in England, with significant house building and population growth but without the infrastructure to support it. I am supporting local councillor David Shepherd to try to secure a GP in Stenson Fields.
Transport remains a connectivity challenge for us. Our largest town, Swadlincote, has not been served by a railway station for quite some time. The reopening of the Ivanhoe line, as championed by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), would reconnect our communities, support local businesses and help people access jobs and education.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I want to out myself: I am a west midlands MP, not an east midlands MP. But what my hon. Friend is speaking about is a structural failure of transport across the east and west midlands. The east midlands receives 54% of the UK’s average transport spend per head, which is the lowest of any region or nation in the country, but for rail that figure is 40%. As I often say, I can get from Stafford to London in about an hour and 10 minutes, but if I want to get across to one of the other east midlands cities—Derby, Leicester or Nottingham—the picture is completely different. We have built excellent lines up and down the country, but the lack of lines across the country is really holding back the development of the wider region. Does she agree that to maximise growth in both our regions, we have to invest in rail from east to west?
Samantha Niblett
I could not agree more. Reopening the Ivanhoe line would not only give us access to Burton, Coalville and eventually Leicester, but enable onward journeys to bigger cities including Birmingham and London. I support the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) made for a direct line to Manchester, too.
Through the work of Mayor Claire Ward, we have a real opportunity to unlock the potential of some of our region. South Derbyshire already has the ingredients for success: world-class manufacturers, innovative engineers, ambitious entrepreneurs and strong communities. What we now need is investment that matches that potential. Let this debate be a rallying cry that when we invest in South Derbyshire and the east midlands, we invest in one of the most dynamic and productive parts of the country, with communities ready to grow, ready to innovate and ready to help drive the region’s and the country’s future prosperity.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on his incredibly powerful speech and other colleagues from across the east midlands and nearby on the love they have shown for this part of the United Kingdom. We could almost say that we are under the moon of love—in fact, that reminds me that nobody has mentioned a great cultural export from Leicester: Showaddywaddy. I have fond memories of them from my childhood in the 1970s.
It is important that we reflect on where we have come from economically and the challenges that we face. The Tories crashed the economy—colleagues have covered that well—and the fact that we are having to pay so much interest on debt holds back our economy. The Liz Truss crash put some of the challenges that we face on steroids. The lack of investment over many years has affected the whole country, including the east midlands. The challenges we face in the south-west of England, as a part of the country that feels left behind, are not dissimilar from those that the east midlands faces. I represent the most deprived constituency that has a Liberal Democrat MP.
I would like to reflect on some of the positives. In my patch, we have an outstanding fishing industry, alongside the hospitality, electronics and photonics industries. That chimes with what colleagues have said about the manufacturing tour de force in the east midlands: whether it is Siemens, Rolls-Royce or Toyota, there are large companies powering the east midlands economy, and there are SMEs doing the same.
With so many Labour MPs here, I am afraid to tread on toes, but I will anyway. The national insurance hike has, sadly, had an impact on our economic growth and has led to uncertainty, speculation and delays to budgets. We desperately needed a firm hand on the tiller after the Tories, and it has not been there. I hope for the sake of the economy that we will see one soon. The Employment Rights Act 2025 is not a massive issue for companies like Toyota or Rolls-Royce, which have the capacity, but for SMEs and microbusinesses it is more of a challenge. I implore the Minister to reflect on that.
Jonathan Davies
The hon. Member mentions the national insurance hike. I am disappointed about that, but would he be content to see public services—education, healthcare and public transport—continue to fail people? We needed that investment to get the country back on its feet.
Steve Darling
Sadly, the investment that I had hoped to see in my hospital in Torbay has been kicked into the long grass. We still have hundreds of sewage leaks across the hospital, 85% of which is not fit for purpose. However, let me go back to discussing the east midlands, which is what we are really here to do.
As I was saying, SMEs will be challenged the most. I implore the Minister to consider that, as the Employment Rights Act is rolled out. Even HR reps acknowledge that this is important. Introducing it at the same time as the national insurance hike has resulted, effectively, in a double hit to the economy.
Amanda Hack
One of the things that is problematic about the hon. Gentleman’s line of questioning is that one in 10 people in Leicestershire are on an NHS waiting list. In order to increase economic productivity, we need to make sure that people of working age are well enough to work. Does he agree that investment in health is also key to economic productivity?
Steve Darling
Yes. Let me reflect on the three areas that we need to be driving in particular. The first is our green energy approach, which the Government have made significant steps on. I am disappointed that the previous Government had a policy that did not prioritise the new schemes. A number of zombie schemes were sticking in the system. We need only look at the shock to our economy.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman talks about green carbon-neutral schemes coming forward. I welcome yesterday’s announcement of a construction partner for the STEP Fusion plant at West Burton in Nottinghamshire: the consortium known as ILIOS, which is led by a joint venture between Kier and Nuvia, supported by AECOM, A_AL Architects, and Turner & Townsend. This will see the creation of thousands of jobs right across the region. We should welcome that initiative by our Government.
Steve Darling
I am delighted to welcome that, but we need to drive harder. We need only look at the massive impact on our economy of the incredibly foolish war that has been launched by Donald Trump. Uncoupling ourselves from the oil and gas industry will be a good way of protecting ourselves from such impacts in the future.
The second area I will reflect on is our young people. The fact that 16.1% of young people are unemployed is a real challenge. In my constituency of Torbay, there is a description of a “bay mentality”. A barrister came to speak at the school of one of my sons. He talked about using one’s connections ruthlessly. In a working-class setting, that is not so easy. People do not have such connections. My challenge to the Minister is, beyond the scheme announced by the Government yesterday, how are we looking at opportunities for working-class youngsters in particular to gain enrichment and experience, to get them to a better place?
Finally, given how many progressive Labour Members are present, I am shocked that so far we have not talked about rejoining the customs union. I look forward to the Minister sharing a date for when she is planning to complete the negotiations to rejoin the customs union, which will grow our economy significantly.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing the debate, and welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition about what is not only an important region but a great one, as he put it.
As we have heard, the east midlands is home to world-leading manufacturers, a thriving logistics sector, pioneering aerospace firms and hundreds of thousands of small and medium-sized businesses. There is huge potential, as every Member who has spoken has attested to. These businesses, workers and entrepreneurs deserve a Government who are pursuing policies to help them to realise that potential and drive growth in the area. Concerningly, however, growth has been consistently downgraded; we need only look at the spring forecasts a couple of weeks ago to see that growth has been once again downgraded for the coming year, and that is before any impact is felt from the operations happening in the middle east.
Today we have heard lots of ideas from Members across the parties on how to realise growth in the east midlands. That can be achieved, but will require the Government to change course. The region has many internationally renowned businesses. Members have rightly spoken proudly about Rolls-Royce, Toyota, Alstom and other businesses. The East Midlands Hydrogen zone is positioning the region at the forefront of clean energy transitions, and of course there is a strong university sector. It is a region with key strengths, and the last Government recognised that. Several Members referred to the East Midlands freeport, which was given the green light in 2023. The only inland freeport in England was backed by Government seed funding at the time and underpinned a projected 28,000 jobs coming to the area.
If we look at the wider picture, the current Government have talked a lot about economic growth, but sadly growth has underperformed. As the Liberal Democrat spokesman—the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling)—said, we cannot ignore the impact of the higher national insurance charges. We cannot ignore the higher business rates that many companies are about to be hit with, as well as higher wage and other costs. The Bank of England has pointed out the impact that these have had.
Michael Payne
Does the shadow Minister also regret the fact that between 2010-11 and 2019-20 local authority spending in the east midlands dropped by 22.6%, on the previous Government’s watch?
James Wild
We can trade statistics, but the context for that was the 2009 financial crash, which led to a deficit of 12% to 15%. [Interruption.] The Government who came in were the coalition Government, including our Liberal Democrat colleagues, and it was Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who drove those savings in spending, particularly in local government but also in other areas. We had to get the books to balance. That was the context that we had to deal with. People can deny the reality, but that was the situation at the time.
The number of people who are unemployed is forecast to hit 2 million by the end of the year. I expect other Members are particularly worried, as I am, about the impact on young people. Youth unemployment has already moved above 16%, which is higher than the EU average. We are now in the bizarre position in which the Government are having to pay companies to take on young people whom the Government’s own policies have priced out of having jobs. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) highlighted, SMEs across—[Interruption.]
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. Let us not have chuntering from a sedentary position.
James Wild
If hon. Members want to intervene, they are welcome to do so. As my right hon. Friend said, small and medium-sized businesses across the east midlands and beyond are having to cope with those costs, making it harder for them to invest and grow. The Government should listen to them.
Fundamentally, the problems that the east midlands and the UK face in relation to growth are around productivity. Investment has been too low. The UK has trailed the G7 average over the last 30 years, not just the last 14 years. Our infrastructure ambitions are often buried under red tape and excessive costs. Colleagues have spoken about energy costs. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) spoke about Denby and the ceramics sector, and we hope that a solution is found for that workforce. But by linking us to the EU emissions trading scheme, the Government will be driving up costs for our industry.
The sparks of business dynamism have dimmed. Office for National Statistics data shows that firm entry and exit rates have reduced, particularly compared with the United States. That leads to a less competitive, dynamic and innovative economy. The east midlands has consistently been ranked among the least productive regions in the UK, but that is not inevitable and nor should it be, because if it stays like that, living standards will not increase.
Steve Yemm
Does the hon. Member recognise the fact that, in 2010, productivity in the east midlands was at 92% of the national average, but by the time the previous Government left office it was at 85%? Actually, the region went steadily backwards under the Conservative Government. Does he recognise that?
James Wild
I am looking at the House of Commons Library brief on the average productivity level. I cannot quite see the hon. Member’s point reflected in the chart that I am looking at, but I will look at it again afterwards, when there is more time, and see whether that is the reality.
As I said, it is not inevitable that the productivity level is lower, and it cannot be accepted if we want living standards to rise. The Productivity Institute did a study looking particularly at the region, which identified some of the challenges around skills shortages, infrastructure and under-investment in research and development. Many Members have spoken about transport spending in particular. The briefing note for the debate from East Midlands Councils talks about a period of 20 years in which there has been a lack of investment. I understand the importance of improving investment; if I was speaking in an east of England debate, I and other colleagues would be pointing out that we also do not get our fair share.
The east midlands is a region of makers, and manufacturing makes up a greater part of the economy there than in any part of the UK other than Wales. In terms of productivity, the 2023 output was 14.7% below the recent UK average. Boston Consulting Group has just published a report on productivity, which I commend to Members, that looks at the underlying factors for this national challenge. The sectors that historically have driven productivity—manufacturing, information and communication technology, and financial services—accounted for 84% of the positive increase in the pre-crisis decade, but since then, that figure has fallen to just 34%. While those are still key sectors that are important for the economy, they are performing less well than previously.
What do we do to change that? We need to look at policies that boost productivity, including focusing on incentivising R&D spending in advanced manufacturing, reducing the barriers to commercialising innovation, and building on the full expensing introduced by the last Conservative Government to boost investment. Sadly, in the Finance (No. 2) Bill, which I have just gone through in Committee, some of the incentives on capital allowances have been reduced. We also need to promote a culture of enterprise, not one that is focused on regulatory compliance. We certainly need cheaper energy in order to compete. We need to scrap some of the bureaucracy around planning, and boost competition and skills.
The east midlands is a region with assets, and it is a strong driver of national growth. It has the companies, the geographic position, the people, and the small and medium-sized businesses to make a change. By pursuing reforms—the hon. Member for Rushcliffe outlined a number of recommendations in the APPG report that seemed sensible and well worth considering—the east midlands can be helped to maximise its potential.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing the debate, and I thank Members who have spoken for their insight, passion for their area, and fantastic contributions. Let me start with my hon. Friend’s insightful analysis of both the challenges and opportunities in the area. I look forward to reading the APPG report, and to drawing insights on how we can continue to work with the area to advance its economic potential.
We all agree that economic growth is paramount, and it is one of the Government’s top priorities. Economic growth is central to raising living standards, which we absolutely must do, funding improvements in public services after a decade and a half of under-investment by the Conservatives, and rebuilding the country. That is why the Government are determined to not only drive growth from the centre but empower local leaders with the tools they need to drive growth in their area—local leaders such as Mayor Claire Ward, a fantastic Labour mayor whom I have had the privilege of working with, and who has been an important champion for the region before and since her election.
Productivity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) pointed out so eloquently, is one of the key drivers of growth. While we can debate the causes, we all recognise that productivity has been weaker in the years following the 2008 financial crisis. Improved productivity will require relentless work and a focus at every level of government—from national Government, through to our regional government and our local authorities—in partnership with the business community and industry.
That work is essential to everything that my Department and others are doing to make progress—and we are making progress. Analysis by the Resolution Foundation last month showed that UK productivity grew more in the last year than in the previous seven combined. But we acknowledge that there is more that we need to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe was right to point out that productivity varies across the country. Indeed, the gap between our cities, where we would expect some of the highest productivity, and the UK average stands in contrast to the performance of many comparable cities across the OECD. Cities such as Lyon, Frankfurt, Turin and Bilbao have productivity higher than the UK average, while many of our own cities have productivity lower than our UK average. As my hon. Friends the Members for Rushcliffe and for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) pointed out, devolution is key to unpacking, unlocking and dealing with the challenge.
We know the impact that devolution can have on growth and in improvements for local people. The parts of the country with the longest and deepest devolution of powers and funding are the ones where growth is taking off. That is why we are giving more areas, including the East Midlands combined authority, the tools and funding that they need to address the challenges in their areas and to realise the opportunities for growth. Devolution is fundamental to achieving the change that the public expect and, frankly, deserve: growth, more joined-up delivery of public services, and politics being done with communities, not to them.
I am conscious, however, that the debate is not just about the East Midlands combined authority; it is about the whole of the east midlands. Local leaders have an important role to play in growing the economy. We want more collaboration, not less, and we are supporting places to access devolution so that they can work together to drive outcomes locally. We have therefore issued a call for areas without devolution, including parts of the east midlands not within the combined authority, to come together with their neighbours to form strategic authorities so that they can benefit from devolution.
Local leaders will have greater control over economic development levers, transport and skills, as well as having revenue-raising powers, to ensure that they invest in the economic prosperity of their area. In the meantime, we encourage local leaders to work together and to set a vision for their area. Many local authorities already have an economic strategy, and we encourage them to set out a vision for growth in their area and to work across administrative boundaries for the benefit of their region. Industrial strategy zones are a perfect example—industry, innovators and government coming together, and local leaders equipped with a powerful set of tools to drive growth in each of the sectors.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe rightly pointed out under-investment in these areas, and Members across the House reiterated that point. I would say that that is, in fact, a double whammy, because we have had under-investment across the piece under previous Governments for 15 years, in every key part of the economy and in the infrastructure that we need to unlock economic development. In addition, investment was skewed to some areas, to the disadvantage of others, and we are absolutely determined to turn that around and put that right.
That is why we as a Labour Government are putting in record investment across all key sectors of the economy. On the key point of transport, where Members have pointed out a range of transport investment schemes and key pinch points to economic growth, the Department for Transport has unlocked a record £2 billion of support for transport in the east midlands. That is an important first step to deal with some of the critical transport connectivity issues, combined with investment in the green economy—which we see across the east midlands —in advanced manufacturing and in defence, with £180 million of local growth funding next year alone, to ensure that we put the money in to unlock the potential that we can see and that my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe so eloquently pointed out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) made the point that when we put investment in, it does not always touch our communities or lift the lives of people in those communities. We need to be intentional about it, which is why what my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and other Members said about skills is absolutely critical. We have to combine the investment with intentional work to ensure that we develop a workforce strategy for the area and the skills, and ensure that we have the employment support to get people into jobs. That is the approach that we will take with the combined authority and that we intend to take with Team Derby. Our absolute commitment is to do our bit to work alongside leaders to unlock potential.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) talked about the critical role of the visitor economy, which we absolutely recognise. One of the key requests of our mayors was for a visitor levy so that they can raise revenue that can then be invested in the enabling infrastructure and the support we need to boost the visitor economy. We are now consulting on that, and we will legislate on it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) talked about how this cannot be just a short-term blip; we need a long-term commitment and long-term plans. In the mayor, Claire Ward, we see a long-term plan for the area, but that long-term commitment from local leaders must be matched by a long-term commitment from this Government. That is why we are moving to multi-year funding that is looking at the long-term horizon in our places, and standing with our local leaders to invest and unlock that potential over the next decade.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) and for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) made clear, however, the plan cannot just be for our urban centres, as critical as they are as engines of growth in the region. It must also speak to our rural areas to make sure that we unlock opportunities, not just in our towns and cities, but across the agricultural sector and our rural economy. We must also ensure that we deal with those pockets of deprivation.
Pride in Place is targeted at that very question: how, alongside the big work that we are doing regionally or in a local area, do we get investment into some of our deprived communities so that they can invest in the things that will lift up their area and restore pride in place? That goes hand in hand with the work that we know needs to be done regionally.
Finally, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) made the important point about SMEs, which make up 99% of businesses in the economy. Under the last Government, however, we saw a huge neglect of the SME economy. Our job is to make sure that we support the backbone of our economy, which is why we have an SME strategy that looks at everything from late payments to procurement and how we provide the support to ensure that SMEs continue to be the key engine for growth.
I will end by referring to the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), who spent a long time bemoaning the Government’s growth record. I would gently point out, as has been acknowledged by Members across the House, that the legacy that we are trying to turn around is a function of the fact that we had a decade and a half of Governments who did not have an economic strategy, who chose to under-invest in key services, and who deliberately took money away from regions across the country, such as the east midlands, to make sure that they did not meet their economic potential. We are turning that around; that is the job and we are getting on with it.
The underlying fundamentals are there. We have been in power for 18 months; it will take time to repair the damage that was done over a decade and a half, but we are getting on with that job. Today, the Chancellor will set out our economic plan and the sectors that we will be boosting. Part of that will be a critical step around how we devolve to areas, such as the east midlands and across the country, to ensure that they work alongside us in partnership to unlock their potential.
To sum up, it is clear that we all agree on the need to boost productivity and support economic growth across the east midlands. I hope Members can see the Government’s commitment, passion and determination to work alongside leaders in the east midlands to ensure that we do that. Devolution is a critical part of that, and my job is to ensure that, whether through mayoral strategic authorities or foundation strategic authorities, we equip our local leaders with the skills, tools and capabilities they need to do their job.
But that is just one part of the answer: from day one, the Government have been clear that while local leadership in all its forms and at all levels is vital, it sits alongside the work that we are determined to do at the national level to boost the economic potential of the east midlands and every region across the country. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe for being such an amazing champion for the area. I look forward to working with him and Members across the House to make sure that we do right by the region.
James Naish
I thank you, Dr Huq, and all Members for their contributions. It came as no surprise to me that this was effectively a debate of two halves. On the one hand, we heard about the positives. The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) talked about the east midlands having the largest port in the country. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) reminded us of that fantastic football result in 2015-16, which is probably still the east midlands’ greatest achievement. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) talked about the Government’s commitment to nuclear and engineering capability. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) talked about an industrial presence, and it was good to hear about jobs returning to his area.
The truth is, however, that the east midlands is building back from years of under-investment. My constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), mentioned the need for flooding investment and better local government funding. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) talked about the fragmentation of strategic and industrial leadership.
Many Members mentioned the lack of rail connections, which are so important for boosting our economy, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) talked about the need for reliable public transport. I know she, and all of us here, will be seeking to work closely with our relevant local authorities and strategic leadership to make sure that is delivered for our constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) was absolutely right to talk about the importance of leading with public sector investment—not relying on the private sector, but moving forward with the public sector. That is what I hope our Government will be doing, and I believe they are seeking to do that, but we must put our foot on the accelerator when it comes to the east midlands because we are starting a long way behind other regions of the country.
I am sure we will continue to work across the House to promote the east midlands. With that in mind, I will invite all Members to room W2 at 11 o’clock so that we can quickly reconstitute the APPG for the east midlands and continue this work over the next 12 months.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered productivity and economic growth in the East Midlands.
Croydon Area Remodelling Scheme
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. I will call Natasha Irons to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. Other Members can make a speech with prior permission from the mover of the motion, which I think on this occasion has already been secured. As this is one of those 30-minute wonders, there is no time for a winding-up speech at the end.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for the Croydon Area Remodelling Scheme.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq.
As the Minister will know, this is the second time that I have secured a debate on this topic; it is great to be reunited with him today. It is really important to return to the subject, because the Croydon area modelling scheme is not just about driving billions in economic growth across the east and south-east, or capitalising on key infrastructure projects such as the expansion of Gatwick and Luton airports, or the opening of the Universal Studios theme park, but about something far greater. It is about getting a lift at Norwood Junction station.
The Croydon area modelling scheme, or CARS, is a Network Rail plan to add capacity and resilience to the most complex part of Britain’s rail network, and improve services not just on the Brighton main line but on the wider Thameslink growth corridor, which runs from Peterborough to Brighton.
The lack of capacity at East Croydon station and the complex series of junctions north of Croydon—the Selhurst triangle—means that trains across the Brighton main line and the wider Thameslink corridor, including those that run between Gatwick and Luton airports, have been vulnerable to delays and cancellations for many years. Thameslink and the Brighton main line are integral to economic growth in the east and south-east, and the demand for services will only increase.
Around 18% of national passenger journeys take place on the Govia Thameslink Railway network, and south of London it is already the most congested part of the rail network in the country. The Brighton main line is 5% of the southern region network, but delivers about 25% of its revenue, which helps to sustain and subsidise the wider rail system. About 1.7 million people live in areas served by the Brighton main line outside of London and more than 30,000 passengers a day already depend on this corridor.
Across the local authorities served by the Brighton main line, around 34,000 homes are required to be delivered every year, and on the Thameslink line Luton airport wants to nearly double passenger numbers to 32 million by 2043, while Gatwick is seeking to grow from around 40 million passengers today to as many as 80 million in the late 2030s. The new Universal Studios theme park in Bedfordshire, which is due to open in 2031, is expected to attract 8.5 million visitors a year and support 28,000 jobs.
That is a genuine growth and opportunity corridor, and it all flows through the bottleneck at East Croydon. East Croydon station already handles more trains in a day than all the inter-city operators from Euston, St Pancras and King’s Cross. It is a critical pinch point, where limited platforms, constrained tracks and complex junctions restrict the number of trains that can flow through it.
It is because Thameslink is such an interconnected system that delays here do not stay here. A problem at the Croydon bottleneck quickly spreads across the Brighton main line, through the Thameslink core and across the wider network. Around 67% of trains passing through East Croydon are late or cancelled. For the people who rely on that vital route every day, that means missed connections, unreliable journeys and longer commutes.
The issue is made even more pressing because every rail service between London and Gatwick passes through East Croydon. Gatwick’s northern runway expansion is a £2.2 billion project that is expected to support around 14,000 jobs and deliver an estimated boost of £1 billion a year to the economy. However, that could all be held back by poor rail infrastructure.
Gatwick plans include a commitment to have 54% of journeys to the airport made by public transport, so rail is not an optional extra; it is a fundamental element of Gatwick’s success. Without remodelling at East Croydon and in the wider Selhurst triangle, the Brighton main line is expected to reach 100% capacity by 2030. Addressing the bottleneck could unlock around £5.1 billion in economic value over the next 20 years, and provide the resilience and growth that this corridor needs to succeed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I spoke to her beforehand to give her my thoughts. I am here to support her and wish her well in the project. There is a good Minister here to help her and her constituents; I look forward to his response. Does the hon. Lady agree that although spending reviews are necessary, these infrastructure developments are essential for local areas? Much like in the case of the Ballynahinch bypass in my constituency, the perpetual long finger is detrimental to the local economy and business. There comes a time when the bottom line cannot be the only common denominator.
Natasha Irons
I completely agree. We have to look at economic investment and infrastructure in broad terms. The fact that local plans can unlock local growth corridors and be key to local areas should be included in the assessment of the validity of these projects.
Addressing the bottleneck could unlock around £5.1 billion in economic value over the next 20 years and provide resilience and growth for this vital corridor. The Croydon area remodelling scheme would expand East Croydon from six platforms to eight, redesign the track layout and remove the conflicting train movements that cause so many delays today. It could create capacity for an additional four to six trains an hour and, based on previous modelling, could deliver around 15% extra peak capacity.
The scheme would also support wider station improvements, drive economic growth and, most importantly, finally get us a lift at Norwood Junction station. Network Rail will not draw up plans for a lift just in case CARS happens at some point in the future, but the Department for Transport has not agreed to restart CARS, which leaves commuters at Norwood Junction stuck in an endless cycle of lift limbo. Further delays to getting CARS off the ground could hold back economic growth not only for the south-east, which is estimated to be the seventh largest regional economy in the country, but for some of this Government’s key infrastructure investments.
This Government have rightly stated their intention to grow every corner of this country, and that good public transport will no longer be confined to the boundaries of our city, so I urge the Minister to consider the wider impact that investment in CARS could have on our coastal communities and our towns and regions outside London. CARS is not just good for Croydon and south-east; it is good for the whole country.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. This issue has been on my radar for a very long time. I used to be the leader of the local authority in Crawley, and we have been aware for many years that the capacity limitations that are coming on the line will be so severe that they will gum up the entire network—the whole north-south link through London—from the coast in Brighton all the way through to Peterborough and Cambridge. Ultimately, we can address that only by resolving the bottleneck in Croydon.
The Department for Transport has already commissioned scoping work and started the process of bringing CARS forward. A significant part of the land required to undertake the work has been purchased and is just sitting idle. Unfortunately, it was the victim of the great strategic vision of our previous Prime Minister, who cancelled HS2 and a number of other proposals. Since that point, it has been very hard for a Department to get things back on the agenda. The new Government have come in with a significant proposal for investing in infrastructure. People underestimate just how significant the Government’s proposals for infrastructure are. We are talking about £100 billion of additional infrastructure investment under this Government, which will transform a very large part of the country.
The risk we run into, however, is where that investment goes. There are different pressures acting on the DFT as a consequence. Some of it is about trying to regenerate regional economies in the north of England and other parts of the country. As someone who lives in south-east, it is to my benefit for other parts of the country to develop. The direction of travel of policy in this country for many decades has been, essentially, “We are going to move the entire population of the United Kingdom to the south-east, and that is where the only jobs will be.” That is not sustainable. The housing pressures are just not sustainable. We have to have regeneration elsewhere.
However, the risk with insufficient investment in the south-east is killing the goose that lays the golden egg. The south-east as a whole generates more economic activity than London. In combination with London, we are talking about a third of the UK’s economic activity. If we do not invest in the infrastructure that sustains that, we will run into very significant problems. The Gatwick airport expansion is supposed to come forward in my community. My community already has full employment, and it has a housing problem. With the capacity limitations expected on the line by 2030, my community will have a very significant transport problem—and I should add that those limitations will come into effect without Gatwick expansion.
Gatwick expansion will not necessarily bring any additional benefits to my community, but it brings benefits to the country. I can understand that, and I respect why the DFT is going in that direction, but if we are to see additional benefits to the country coming out of economic activity, that has to come with the necessary infrastructure not only to enable my community to avoid the negative consequences of the housing and transport pressure that will result if the scheme is not put into effect, but to enable the country to get the best possible rate of return on the investment. Ultimately, that is what those of us involved want.
A large number of business groups now support the scheme and are making the point that we are cutting off investment in the area. I was at a meeting last week with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons), the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) and a number of business and transport groups. One business group, which tries to bring inward investment to the United Kingdom, said that people refuse to move here when they have experience the railway capacity or the delays on the line getting to and from Gatwick. That is a real consequence of the UK’s inward investment strategy.
We need to ensure that we have the infrastructure to get the maximal benefits of the private investment that is coming in, and the south-east will deliver on that. This is the only profit-making line in the GTR network. The numbers coming through will quickly increase the rate of return for the Treasury, based on the investment. We are one of the very few areas where rail investment would do that, and subsidise other railway lines elsewhere. It will pay for itself in the long term, but we need the pump priming at the start. If we pump prime this part of the south-east with the relatively limited amount of capital we are talking about, it will deliver a much greater return to the Treasury and the UK, through the social and economic benefits of the resultant growth.
It is worth noting that passenger volumes are projected to increase by 50% by 2045, which is 15 years after we run out of capacity on the line. If CARS is not the solution to that, what is the DFT’s strategy for dealing with capacity limitations of that scale on the line? I am happy to lobby for something else if I am pointed in the right direction, but my understanding, from talking to transport people, is that this scheme is the only thing that is going to resolve that particular problem. There will be some temporary stops along the way, but they can be dealt with.
Despite the reduction in passenger volumes after covid, we are now essentially back to having the mid-week peak, so there is no time for delay. The works are urgently needed if we are going to move things forward. I appreciate that the Treasury needs to address a range of concerns, but this need is urgent now, and will ultimately deliver a much better offer for the United Kingdom in the long run. Please can we just get on with it?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure as always to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) for securing this important debate, and I recognise her tireless advocacy on behalf of her constituents and rail passengers across the region. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for his contribution. I commend the collaboration among local partners, councils, industry and residents in making the case for improvements on the Brighton main line.
The BML is a vital artery that connects the south-east with the heart of London, carrying millions of passengers every year. It is a lifeline for commuters, visitors and businesses, and provides a direct rail connection to Gatwick airport. East Croydon station, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East, serves as a major transport hub, linking services across Sussex, Surrey and the London Tramlink network. The line facilitates billions of pounds in economic activity every year, supporting the growth of businesses and helping communities to remain connected.
The line’s importance is reflected in the significant investment it has received in recent years. The £7 billion Thameslink programme transformed north-south travel through London, delivering faster, more frequent and more reliable journeys for passengers. It introduced a new fleet of class 700 trains on the Brighton main line, significantly increasing onboard capacity. Given the modern technology used in those trains, there have been improvements in service reliability right across the Brighton main line and the wider Thameslink network.
Major stations such as London Blackfriars and London Bridge were completely rebuilt as part of the programme, and a vital interchange with the Elizabeth line was created at Farringdon. Through the major hub of East Croydon station, the Thameslink programme established new direct connections to destinations such as Peterborough and Cambridge.
More than £250 million was recently invested in upgrading Gatwick Airport station, delivering a more accessible concourse, doubling the space for passengers and improving the reliability of trains calling at the station. For too many years, Gatwick Airport station had impacted services along the Brighton main line due to the extended time that passengers needed to board and alight trains. Following platform widening and track remodelling, passengers can now board more quickly, which reduces delays and cuts journey times between Brighton and London by up to five minutes, and improves performance and reliability overall. It has also reduced knock-on delays further up and down the line. I hope my hon. Friend and her constituents have started to see the direct benefits of those interventions at Gatwick, be it in the efficiency of the train service or the ease with which they can start their holiday journeys.
Before the pandemic, the Croydon area remodelling scheme was rightly identified as a way to address overcrowding, increase capacity and improve the reliability of the Brighton main line. As my hon. Friend outlined, the complex junction at Selhurst—often referred to as the Croydon bottleneck—alongside the challenging operation of East Croydon and Norwood Junction stations, places significant constraints on the capacity and smooth operation of the network.
CARS was developed to address those challenges through extensive remodelling of the tracks and rail junctions north of East Croydon station. The programme also included plans for the redevelopment of East Croydon and Norwood Junction stations. At the time, Network Rail estimated that the scheme would take more than 10 years to deliver and would cost about £2.9 billion. Delivery would also require substantial disruption for passengers travelling along the Brighton main line.
As we know, the covid-19 pandemic changed travel patterns, created uncertainty about future demand and placed considerable pressures on public finances. In response, the previous Government took the decision to cancel the scheme at the 2021 spending review, although regrettably that decision was never actually formally communicated to stakeholders. No further development work has taken place on CARS since then.
On 8 July 2025, the Secretary of State updated Parliament on rail infrastructure scheme progress following the 2025 spending review. As my hon. Friend is aware, CARS was not allocated funding. The Government are committed to delivering infrastructure that offers the greatest benefit to passengers and the wider economy as quickly as possible and within a fully funded, deliverable programme. Given limited funding for rail enhancement projects and the significant recent investment already made on the line, including through Thameslink and Gatwick, the difficult decision was taken not to prioritise CARS at this stage.
I recognise that, despite those investments, my hon. Friend and other Members who represent constituencies along the Brighton main line will continue to make the case for investment. The next spending review, due in 2027, will be an important opportunity to make the case for future investment. The Government look forward to working with my hon. Friend and other BML stakeholders in developing that case.
I again thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and for her commitment to championing improvements for rail passengers across her constituency and the wider region. I understand the disappointment that she and other stakeholders expressed following the outcome of the spending review last year. Although difficult decisions have been necessary, the Government recognise the long-term benefits of the Croydon area remodelling scheme. We will continue to work constructively with industry partners, local authorities and stakeholders as we consider future opportunities to improve capacity and performance on this vital route.
The case that my hon. Friend has set out today and on many previous occasions will remain an important part of the discussions as we look to the future. I am sure the Rail Minister looks forward to continuing that engagement and ensuring that the Brighton main line remains a reliable, high-performing railway that supports passengers, communities and economic growth for years to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Immigration Reforms
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered immigration reforms.
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. What an extraordinary few weeks we have had in the area of home affairs and immigration. It has been quite breathtaking. It is difficult to grasp the scale and ferocity of the Home Secretary’s assault on immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers in the past few weeks. It is simply astonishing that in a few short weeks she has turned nearly all our assumptions about refugee status and asylum totally on their head. She has embarked on one of the biggest set of reforms on asylum and immigration that we have witnessed in the past few years, and all without one Government-sponsored debate on the Floor of the House and without one single vote for Members.
We had barely caught our breath from the outrageous changes to indefinite leave to remain and its associated earned settlement restrictions when there was an almost daily blitz of further cruel and restrictive measures. In case the House has forgotten, I will refresh Members on what has been announced, because it is totally extraordinary. First, at the beginning of March the Home Secretary arbitrarily announced that refugee status was to be completely redefined, from something that had always been akin to a permanent status to something that would be temporary. It was to be reduced from five years to 30 months, with the proviso that people may be returned to their countries of origin if the Home Secretary, exclusively and on her own, deemed those countries to be safe.
Let us think about what that will do to people and families. It will lock people into years of insecurity, denying them the opportunity to rebuild shattered lives. It will prolong uncertainty for refugee families, making it almost impossible to make decisions about education for children and for these poor souls to find positive employment. What employer is going to spend money hiring, training and investing in people if there is a chance they will be booted out of the country within the next two and a half years?
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. Is he concerned, like me, about what the reforms will mean for the survivors of abuse who have fled persecution abroad? Does he agree that perpetrators already weaponise immigration status against their victims, and that removing refugee protection will lead only to survivors having even less access to support and being too scared of deportation to leave?
Pete Wishart
The hon. Lady is spot on, and entirely right to raise those issues. The changes will effectively retraumatise so many asylum seekers and refugees who have already experienced of all sorts of abusive arrangements. I am glad the Minister is here to listen to the hon. Lady’s remarks.
Only a couple of days after the announcement on refugee status, the Home Secretary announced what she called an “emergency brake” on visa applications from nationals from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan. Those are some of the most dangerous countries in the world, where conflict, oppression and human rights abuses are an everyday feature and continue to drive people from their homes. The Home Secretary says she wants to expand safe and legal routes, but at one stroke she took away meaningful safe and legal routes from some of the most dangerous countries in the world.
Not content with that, the Home Secretary then went on to announce a pilot scheme offering financial inducements for failed asylum seekers to return to their country of origin. It was a voluntary scheme, but only in the context of, “If you refuse that inducement, you may be forcibly removed.” The proposal is chillingly reminiscent of what we are seeing in the United States, where Trump’s paramilitary Immigration and Customs Enforcement force is forcibly evicting people who are on the wrong side of the refugee and asylum system there.
The Home Secretary actually said—I could not believe it when I heard it—that she is currently consulting on how removals can be carried out “humanely and effectively”, particularly where children are involved. Let us pause and think for a minute about the forcible removal of families in the United Kingdom where children might be involved.
Even after that—this was in only one week—it went on. Next, the Home Secretary announced changes to the law that will mean it is no longer a legal duty to provide financial support to asylum seekers. Payments will stop for anyone working illegally, anyone convicted of a crime or anyone with independent financial means. I am sure people listen to that and think, “That sounds fair enough and pretty reasonable. If people are in any of those categories, it’s quite right that they shouldn’t receive Government support.”
But that is only until we consider what is required for an asylum seeker to work in the United Kingdom. They can work only with the permission of the Home Office, and securing that permission is a complex, byzantine, bureaucratic task that some people in the asylum community say is barely possible. The only thing that will be achieved is more people being put into destitution. If we look at the Trussell Trust or any of the food banks, we see that the number of asylum seekers who are now seeking assistance and help is going through the roof—and it will only go further.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Care workers such as Grace Reji work hard to provide an invaluable service to the most vulnerable people in my constituency. She has a family, but when faced with a possible five-year increase in the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain, carers like her worry that they will be forced to leave. Coleg Elidyr, an education and care setting in my constituency, looks after young people with special needs and also relies on migrant staff. Does the hon. Member agree that we cannot underestimate the long-term damage of the Government’s ill-thought-out immigration policies on workforce stability and services for the most vulnerable in our society?
Pete Wishart
I absolutely agree. I am really pleased that the hon. Lady raised that issue, and she is right to do so. I have received countless briefings from a number of organisations, including the Royal College of Midwives, that are genuinely concerned about where this leads. Scotland is in the early stages of depopulation; just wait till they get it down here. If the Government think immigration is a bad thing, just wait till they get to the negative consequences of emigration. We are starting to get there, because it looks like immigration this year will be net zero. The rest of the UK is about to experience the end of population growth, which will put all sorts of strains on demographic issues throughout this country. The hon. Lady is right to raise that point.
It is not only that people are being forced out; I have high-value constituents from Sri Lanka who are just going home. They have had enough. They cannot be bothered dealing with a Government who treat them so shabbily and shoddily and do not see any value in what they do. That is what the Government are doing with the immigration changes.
All this essentially delivers prolonged uncertainty, fear and anxiety in the asylum system. It will undermine every and all positive efforts towards integration. It will leave a generation of people living permanently in limbo, constantly looking over their shoulder and fearing that, at any moment, they may be forcibly removed. Whole communities that have already been traumatised by having to leave their home, sometimes in the most extraordinary conditions, fleeing oppression, with their own lives sometimes at risk, feel they are being traumatised all over again.
But do not worry—the Home Secretary tells us this is the plan. She says we have to make the UK an unattractive country for people who want to come here, as if they could make hostile-environment UK even more unattractive. That is the Government’s mission, and by God are they making a good go of it! They are not just making the UK an unattractive place for asylum seekers; they are making it an unattractive place for all of us who have to live in this country—all of us who care deeply and passionately about community harmony, consensus, building communities and giving honourable people a break and an opportunity to get on with their lives. Well done, Minister: you have managed to make this place even more unattractive than the Conservatives did, and I did not believe that would be possible for a minute.
The Government do not have the courage to bring their proposal to the House. They do not have the guts to bring it forward and ask us to support them, because they know what will happen: all the Labour MPs who oppose this will be there to voice that opposition, call them out and join us in standing up for some of the most wretched souls who inhabit this country. That is why they will not bring anything to the House.
The Home Secretary did not even have the courtesy to come to the House and make a proper statement. She was forced to answer an urgent question from the Conservatives, who actually told her that she did not go far enough, but she did not have the courtesy to come to the House to announce the reforms. She was in Denmark, in the British embassy in Copenhagen. She is asking us to emulate what is happening in Denmark—a country that could not be more different from the United Kingdom in terms of our historical roles in the world.
Denmark’s approach has not produced anything resembling a humane, fair or effective asylum system. It has not defeated the rise of the far right. Denmark has what it calls “parallel societies”, a sinister development that seems like some sort of weird ghetto law. Denmark has seen growing calls from its far right for remigration—that is where the debate is going there—and it has some of the worst structural discrimination in any welfare system in Europe. “Let’s copy Denmark,” they say. Well done on that one!
I remind the Minister, because he is such a fan of Denmark, that the Social Democratic alliance that introduced those measures was facing political annihilation until Trump ensured political and national unity with all his Greenland ambitions. But even so, many social democrats and progressives have abandoned those parties and are looking to the Greens and other progressive parties in Denmark. Maybe that is the real lesson from Denmark: look at what is happening to core Social Democrat support.
The truth is that the Government will not bring the reforms to the House because they know what will happen if they do. More than 100 Labour MPs have written to the Home Secretary to say that they have deep concerns about what is proposed. I hope that if they are given the chance to vote, many of them will join us in beating the proposals.
The question that always gets me in this particular Parliament is: why are the Government doing this? What is motivating them to take such an approach to immigration and asylum, and why do it now? The conventional view from the Government, and what we continue to hear from various Ministers and the Home Secretary, is that if they are not seen to be hard on asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants, their votes will go to Reform—that Reform will continue to grow unless Labour is seen to be as hard as Reform when it comes to these issues. But there is absolutely no evidence that Labour supporters are moving towards Reform. There is loads of evidence that Labour voters are moving towards the Greens; we have seen that in a couple of—
Pete Wishart
Does the hon. Lady want to intervene? Sorry; I thought she was making weird gestures at me, but obviously she is just looking at her phone. That is what is actually happening.
As I have said to the Government at every opportunity —and I will say it again and again—they cannot beat Reform by emulating them. Reform can be beaten by challenging its agenda and dismantling its toxic ambitions. Reform cannot be beaten by marching on to its territory and fighting on its ground. All that does is legitimise its arguments and embolden its ambition.
You would think, Mr Stringer, that after their absolute hammering at the by-election a couple of weeks ago by my colleagues in the Green party, the Government might just think, “Is this working for us? Is there a problem with the way we are positioning ourselves on the spectrum of UK politics?” They might have taken a cursory glance at what happened in Caerphilly, where my colleagues from Plaid Cymru hammered the Government and stood strong against Reform, and were rewarded by a stunning by-election victory.
The Government’s strategy seems to be going on to Reform’s territory and trying to beat them. I say ever so gently to the Minister: regardless of how hard he tries—and he seems to be trying his utmost and damnedest—he will never out-Reform Reform, which is possibly to his credit. Reform are the absolute masters of sinister, poisonous right-wing ideology and, regardless of how hard the Government try, they will never beat Reform on that territory.
The Government are chasing Reform down that road but not noticing something profound that is happening in British politics. In Scotland, we have a particularly sharp divide in our politics, based around the constitution, and a divide seems to be opening up in English politics. Let us look at who came first and second in the by-elections. On one side, it is the parties of the progressive ideals of unity, consensus and wanting a compassionate immigration system. On the other side stand the parties of the right—the authoritarians and those who believe immigration is a bad thing that has to be controlled and defeated.
Labour is absolutely nowhere. It is fourth in the polls this morning. When is Labour going to have an opportunity to look at where it is? The dividing line is opening up, and Labour Members are all on the wrong side of it. Labour is seen to be part of a right-wing coalition; we hear that every time some right-wing Conservative or senior Member praises the Home Secretary to the rafters, and there is even praise from Reform. I am sure we will get more praise for the Home Secretary from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). I hope he will indulge the House and tell us how wonderful he thinks these things are, because I know that privately he thinks what the Home Secretary is doing is brilliant. That is where Labour is now.
We have a march and rally next Saturday, organised by the Together Alliance. We are all going to be there. We are going to stand up, proudly and defiantly, to the far right. We have a little group in Westminster—the parliamentary forum to take on the far right. Members should come and join us, because that is where the action is in this country now, and where it is increasingly going. Labour Members are going to have to get on the right side or they are going to be finished.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
On the question of being on the right side, I say to the hon. Member that the Manchester Refugee Support Network, through its specialist services, helped almost 3,000 people last year to find stability, security and belonging in our community. It requires £60,000 per year to operate, but its funding runs out in August 2026. Does the hon. Member agree that such organisations must be provided with long-term, sustainable funding to support our most vulnerable constituents?
Pete Wishart
Absolutely. We cannot praise those organisations enough, because they are working in Labour’s hostile environment, where everything has been made harder for them to operate, so of course they should be supported. I am shocked to hear of the difficulties that organisation is having; I am sure that, with the hon. Member’s support, it will be able to address them and turn it around.
We are at an important juncture in UK politics, one that we have never seen or experienced before. A new dividing line is emerging. It looks like the conventional parties of the old times cannot meet and respond to this new agenda, and we are seeing something dramatic and profound happening in our politics.
I used to work with Labour Members when they were in opposition. They were the easiest and greatest people to work with—high values and high ideals. What has happened to them? They had better find their mojo. They had better regain their true intentions and find their values, or it could be a long, hard race to the bottom. I say to them, “It’s up to you now.” They can continue with the decline, or they can come and join us, and ensure that proposals like this are defeated.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. Members who wish to speak should bob. I have taken a rough count of those who have, and we will start with a four-minute limit, which I might have to reduce later.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. My appreciation goes to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate. He has been consistent in defending human rights in his decades of service to this place, and he has my respect for that.
When the country elects a Labour Government, it does so with certain ideas in mind: to lift people out of poverty, to improve public services, to offer genuine left-wing solutions for the problems the country is facing, and to show compassion to the most vulnerable people, both domestically and from across the world. That is why I vote Labour, and one of the main reasons why I joined the party.
No one ever votes Labour with the desire to be tough on the weak and weak on the tough. But with its immigration reforms, the Home Office is being tough on the very weakest—the most oppressed people. The reforms do not represent the values of the Labour party that I joined, and that I am still proud of. We should always stand up for oppressed people at home and all over the world. That really should be a given.
The feeling of perpetual review and assessment will cause no end of uncertainty. The change from five years to 30 months will negatively impact people’s ability to integrate and contribute to Britain. What a barrier to building a new life for people who have fled war, oppression and persecution—the sort of traumas that, personally, I cannot comprehend. This is most certainly not the route to making the country a more caring and more tolerant place.
I honestly do not know why the current leadership seems to think there is mileage in copying the far-right ideals of Reform. Thinking that that is the route to gaining electoral success is incredibly misguided and in no small measure wrong. No one voted Labour thinking that we would make social media videos bragging about deporting some of the most vulnerable people in the world. It is beyond distasteful and it is dangerous, because this is a huge political and moral moment, not just for this Labour party but for this country.
We all see that the far right is making headway across Europe. Fascists are already in power in Italy. France looks likely to elect as President a known extremist with a racist past. With the Government’s cruel reforms, we are trying to appease and pander to the far right’s lack of humanity. If it came to a vote, I certainly would not vote for the reforms, and anyone who would needs to have a look at themselves, and ask themselves the serious question of what happened to their humanity.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
There has been too much immigration into this country for too long, and that is certainly the view of the vast majority of the people I speak to in my constituency. I suspect it is a widespread view among law-abiding, patriotic Britons from all kinds of backgrounds.
Three myths have been perpetuated to sustain the level of immigration that we have endured. The first is that it is necessary for our economy—that we need labour. What migration has actually done is to displace investment in domestic skills, to perpetuate a labour-intensive economy at a time when we should have been automating and taking out labour demand, and to feed the greed of those employers who, rather than paying a decent wage for employees who understood their rights, were happy to take cheap labour. Those have been the effects of the arguments about the economy.
The second myth has been about multiculturalism: this curious notion that we can absorb all kinds of people into our country without a shared sense of belonging, a common sense of what being British is all about, and that these co-existing subcultures would somehow cohere. In fact, as Trevor Phillips, himself of course the child of migrants, argued long ago, we have ended up with the ghettoisation—his words, not mine—of large parts of our country, with co-existing subcultures, without the bonds that bind us together in the shared sense I have described.
The third myth is that migration would not have a detrimental effect on some of our public services. Just imagine the figures for a moment—I am speaking now of legal migration. Between April 2022 and March 2023, the number of people entering Britain was 944,000—944,000 people extra in a year—yet when we debate housing, transport infrastructure, the health service, the availability of dentists and GPs, we never consider the effect of population growth at that scale on the demand for all those services.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The right hon. Gentleman is making an extremely eloquent speech. Of course we understand that the more people come into our country, the more the pressures on our public services will be exacerbated. The numbers he cited are post Brexit, under his former Government. If I remember correctly—I apologise if I get this wrong—net migration before Brexit was around a quarter of million people, mostly skilled labour or for specific work. After Brexit, the Europeans had to return, and we ended up allowing thousands of people to work in our care sector, in our NHS and in service industries that had too many vacancies. How does he explain the policies of his Government, which led to net migration rising from a quarter of a million to 900,000-plus, and what would he do differently today?
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is of course right. The blame for all this should not be laid exclusively in the hands of the Labour party or Labour Governments. Successive Governments have administered a regime that has been out of tune with the sentiments of the vast majority of the population, who know what I have said is true. For the hon. Gentleman is right to say, too, that those successive Governments have allowed unsustainable levels of net migration.
If we look at the history, however, we see it was once quite different. In 1967 net migration was minus 84,000, in 1987 it was just 2,000, and in 1997 it was 48,000. It is in my time in this House—although, I hasten to add, not at my behest—that migration has soared, and we have begun to accept that hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people can be added to our population without taking account of the fact that that brings additional pressure on public services. That is not to say that many of those people do not make a positive contribution to our country—of course they do, in all kinds of ways—but to ignore the facts in terms of, for example, the growth in demand for housing is a dereliction of duty of which politicians across the political spectrum are guilty.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On the issue of population change, it would appear that in the past 25 years the population of the United Kingdom has increased by over 10 million, while our economy has been largely stagnant. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that most people agree that there is a distinct difference between those who come from around the world to contribute to our society, pay their taxes, help the NHS and work, and those who come illegally? That distinction is often lost in this debate.
Sir John Hayes
Illegal migration, of course, is of a different order. Illegal immigration is about breaching borders. A nation means very little unless it has territorial integrity. What is the purpose of a nation that has porous borders? Indeed, it barely deserves to be described as such. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the way our borders have been breached, with impunity, over time.
Bear in mind that nine out of 10 of the people who arrive in dinghies are men, and 75% are under the age of 40. Let us be clear about who is coming, and for what purpose. Many are economic migrants and, frankly, given where they come from, if we came from those places, we might come, too, because we would see a better life here and want that life for our families. I do not criticise the individuals; I criticise a system that permits that level of illegal migration.
Legal migration matters because of its scale and its character. It has led to a change in our society at a pace that many people find it impossible to comprehend, still less to cope with, so it is time that the political establishment, populated as it is by the liberal bourgeoisie—
Sir John Hayes
Not the Minister, of course—I except him from that general description. It is time that the political establishment faced up to the fact that what they have perpetuated for too long is at odds with the intuition, experience and will of the British people. We need to cut migration of all kinds, and we need to cut it now, or they will dispense with us and elect people who will.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members of two things: first, interventions should be brief; and secondly, if you say “you”, you are referring to me.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing the debate.
I have to say to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes): I do not know who he thinks is working in our NHS and in our care sector, providing the skills, or who he thinks the engineers are who are coming here and building our houses in order to support our economy, but we certainly need immigration to support our economy and public services, which have been so severely under-invested in over the past 14 years.
We know our world is challenged. It is stretched and stressed, as we have seen with climate change displacing communities and war springing from that. We are seeing floods and famine across our planet, and as a result people are moving so that they can experience some dignity in their life. Some people come to our shores because they want dignity, and I have to say to the Government that the dehumanisation of fellow citizens of our planet is a complete disgrace and it is not in my name, and it is not in the values of our party.
Our party was built on solidarity between communities. The responsibility of a Labour Government is to bring those communities together, as we always have in our tradition, through the trade unions and through our party, to ensure that we are investing in those communities and bringing fantastic integration, as we are seeing in York, where we recognise the dignity in one another and bring it to the fore. The Government seem to have lost their way, and as a result they are losing support. They have certainly lost their beating heart, which must be re-found.
The draconian policies that are coming out of the Home Office are deeply damaging to our party and our future, as well as to our country, and I plead with the Government to change course. We know that Reform is not interested in the agenda—Reform Members just want power and have not even turned up for this debate today, so why follow them? Why not put a different stake in the ground with a different tune, which talks of different values—the values that we hold deep, the values that we place in those people, including the care workers who are serving our parents’ generation to ensure that they have dignity in later life? I say to the Government: change course.
Change course, as well, on our universities. The policies that have been brought forward for our universities are forcing them into financial ruin. International students have choices, and they used to choose to come to British universities; they are now going overseas. I know from the two universities in my constituency the consequences of the policy. Remove the international student levy, which they should not be paying, and remove the NHS surcharge, which clinicians revile. Ensure that instead we give universities the opportunity to be more inclusive and to have more home students, which the policy clearly rails against.
We have heard about already in this debate the impact of leaving the EU on migration levels. We need to recognise the risk-sharing opportunities of working with our European colleagues in a much more cohesive and comprehensive way. We used to be under the Dublin agreement, and we knew the rules. Since leaving the EU, we have not been part of that expression and working together with other countries. We cannot do this on our own, and we have seen the consequences of that. As imperfect as the asylum and migration management regulations are, at least they put risk-sharing at the heart of the agenda. We should be part of that too.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing this important debate.
Right across my constituency, through the highlands and islands, across Aberdeenshire and right across Scotland, successive Governments continue to fail our communities, our public services and our businesses with immigration policy that bears no scrutiny when it comes to labour requirements. Many Members have talked about the hardships faced by refugees and the impact on their lives, and the humanity or otherwise of our actions. I agree with those sentiments, but I am going to focus on the big impact on employment, and how that impacts the communities in my constituency.
Every day in Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, there are people with care needs that cannot be fully met and businesses that cannot be staffed, not because of lack of budget, but because of lack of labour. “But,” say some, “there are people in the UK who can do these jobs,” but are there, really? In areas like my constituency, much of which is a two-and-a-half-hour drive north of Perth, which itself is an hour north of Edinburgh and five hours north of London—we are talking about somewhere that is 11-plus hours from here—are we really going to drag people away from their families and friends to do these jobs, when there has been and there could be a willing workforce to do them, contribute to our communities and be part of a constructive, progressive and successful whole? People do come by choice and love the places they move to, but their number does not come close to closing the gap between labour demand and labour availability.
The fact is that before Brexit there was far more labour available to care and hospitality. Sadly, that has disappeared in broken Brexit Britain. Care providers that do have foreign workers under excessively strict working visa rules are often left with the utterly invidious choice of not fulfilling care needs of vulnerable clients, or breaking visa rules on hours worked in order to do so. They are then punished severely simply for the act of caring, which is a disturbingly dystopian situation. Business leaders across Scotland, in Federation of Small Businesses branches and chambers of commerce, point to labour shortages and the stalling of economic growth as a result of current immigration policy.
Apsana Begum
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government need urgently—today—to provide clarity on those constituents, perhaps of his and certainly of mine, who came through the European Community association agreement route and have had applications for renewals and other elements paused since November 2025? They are now in complete limbo, although they are eligible as of this month to apply for indefinite leave to remain.
Graham Leadbitter
Absolutely. That is just another example of delays in a system that does not work—a system that is not able to process applications or to deal with the legitimate issues that are raised by people within it in a timely and reasonable way. These are people who could be doing jobs, paying taxes and contributing to society, but have restrictions placed on what they can do and how they can live their lives.
Scottish Labour says it supports a more bespoke immigration system for Scotland, which would be great if its own Ministers paid any attention to it. The oppressive and stifling immigration rules that were imposed by the previous Conservative Government and are now being copper clad by, of all people, a Labour Government, are deeply damaging to the highlands, Moray and far beyond. Will the Government take responsibility for the harms that they are inflicting on vulnerable citizens whose care needs cannot be met from our current working population, and on those in the hard-pressed hospitality sector who cannot provide the service they wish or grow their businesses to meet demand due to an immigration policy that utterly fails them?
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
People in my constituency and, I think, right across the country are clear: they want an immigration system that is fair, but one that is controlled and works in the national interest. That is exactly what this Labour Government, led by the Home Secretary, intend to deliver.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
On the point of fairness, constituents in Derby tell me that they are working hard to make a living and put their kids through school, but they are worried by retrospective changes to ILR. Does my hon. Friend agree that, to make the system completely fair, changes to ILR should not be retrospective?
Steve Yemm
I have met many people living in my constituency—workers from west Africa and from Asia—who make that case to me. I have written to the Home Secretary to support that case, and I hope the Government will look at the results of the consultation and think carefully about transitional arrangements for people who have been in the UK, working quite properly, for some time.
At the same time, as the Home Secretary has set out, it is important to recognise that the Government are restoring both control over the system and compassion. It is important not to choose one over the other, but to deliver both together. As a Government, we are taking decisive action to stop abuse of the system, and we will save taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds as a result. It is important to recognise that we are introducing a system where refugee status is not automatically permanent, but—
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the measures are so sweeping that it is not just asylum seekers who are caught by them, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) mentioned, those who arrived under the ECAA route, also known as the Ankara agreement? They came to this country and set up businesses, they pay taxes, contribute to the country and have set up their lives here, and now, at just the time that they were about to apply for ILR, they are caught by these measures. Does he agree that transitional protections need to be announced as a matter of urgency?
Steve Yemm
It is important to recognise that position, and it is important that transitional arrangements are put in place for people who entered the country absolutely legally. Crucially, I hope my hon. Friend will also recognise that we are shifting the system away from dangerous and illegal routes, towards safe and legal pathways, because no one should be risking their lives in the hands of criminal gangs.
This is what good government looks like. It is about restoring trust in the system, it is about fairness, and it is about delivering for constituents like mine in Mansfield, who expect a system that is fair, controlled and in the national interest. This Labour Government are getting a grip, and I am proud to support them.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing this important debate. Immigration is one of the defining issues of contemporary politics. Polls regularly show that it is one of the most important issues for the public. Much like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), I am told by my constituents that they are fed up with a system that seems to work for absolutely nobody. I send surveys to villages on a monthly basis, and regularly more than 80% of those who return the surveys tell me that this issue is important to them and we need to fix the immigration system.
The Government’s attempts to reform the system are welcome. I encourage them to be ambitious. This is not about chasing Reform, as has been suggested by Members today; it is about focusing on an issue that matters deeply, certainly to my constituents. Earlier this month, I published a short report, “Backdoors to Britain”, which sets out 30 recommendations for strengthening our legal migration system. It comes after months of work and hundreds of written questions to the Home Office—I must apologise for pestering Home Office Ministers with them—which uncovered some alarming truths.
Nearly 17,000 micro-companies with five or fewer employees are eligible to sponsor visas, but there seems to be no data on how many people they have sponsored. There is a clear commercial incentive for our universities to undercut our legal migration system in exercising their power to conduct their own English language testing at the start of study. Completion of a degree, regardless of what it is in or where the individual has come from, itself acts as proof of English language competency for future applications to the Home Office.
Thousands of visa holders come through hard-to-enforce routes with minimal financial requirements. Two examples that I focused on in the report are religious and charity visa routes. We are operating a system where it is easier for someone to bring their non-British spouse to the UK if they are an immigrant than if they are a British citizen. I do not think that is fair to hard-working British citizens who want to bring their non-British spouse to the UK.
Sir John Hayes
I should have congratulated the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing the debate and said how pleased I am that you are in the Chair, Mr Stringer.
My hon. Friend will know that the care visa system established by the previous Government brought here more dependants than care workers. Everyone who arrives in a country brings an economic value and an economic cost; they all want houses, they all want health and they all want education for their children. That was a flagrant example of what my hon. Friend described: more dependants came, and the cost was much greater than the value.
Blake Stephenson
I could not agree more. That is clearly a back door to Britain, and we need to close it.
Our public sector is dependent on a huge number of worker visas, while we debate—even today, in the Chamber —record youth unemployment. As my right hon. Friend said earlier, we need to get those young people into work rather than relying on importing labour.
Perhaps more worrying are the huge gaps in fairly basic compliance data that I uncovered through my questions to the Home Office. Responses to many of my questions indicate that there is a lack of robust data in the Home Office, or that data might be available but producing an answer is simply too expensive. In either case, without robust and easily accessible data in the Home Office, I and my constituents are concerned that our legal migration system is effectively unenforceable.
Britain’s immigration system is not working for the British people. It is time that changed. As we continue to shape a new immigration system over the coming months and years, I hope the Minister will consider the recommendations in my report, which I have shared with Members and might well be in his inbox. I am more than happy to meet him to go through the recommendations if that would be of any use to the Government. My constituents want this Government—any Government, in fact—to end the loopholes, close the back doors to Britain and build an immigration system that works for British citizens.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing a very timely debate. In fact, it took only hours after the Home Secretary’s announcement on settlement rights for messages from worried constituents in Poole to start flooding in. One of them, my constituent Olebanjo, put it very powerfully. He said:
“Migrants are not just statistics; we are carers, professionals, volunteers, and parents raising children who already call this country home. We want to belong, to integrate fully, and to continue giving our best to the UK. This proposal would make that harder, not easier.”
I think he is right. The idea that making life harder for people who are already here, working, raising families and contributing somehow improves assimilation or cohesion simply does not make sense at all.
The Government have described settlement as a privilege to be earned, but that ignores the valuable contribution that those workers have already made to our country, the economy and their local communities. In Poole and across the country, our health service relies on thousands of workers from around the world. In social care, the changes risk turning a staffing crisis into a catastrophe. We cannot tackle that problem by punishing the migrant workers caring for our relatives and providing dignity and warmth to our elderly.
The problem, then, is that migrant workers are being made to pay for issues that they did not cause. The outcome will be, I fear, depressingly predictable. When care homes, particularly those outside big cities, struggle to fill vacancies and care worsens as a result, right-wing politicians and their media outriders will not admit that punishing migrant workers has failed; they will double down and the clamour for harsher measures will grow. Our Labour Government must challenge that approach.
Iqbal Mohamed
Care workers make an invaluable contribution to our country and the people that they care for. Does the hon. Member agree that illegal care companies that are charging to issue visas to people who then come to this country with no job are—along with those people arriving illegally—demonising the legitimate care workers without whom this country would not function?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I led a debate in this Chamber some months ago on the need for a certificate of common sponsorship, which would make sure that individuals coming over to this country and working in the care sector were not tied to a single employer and could move between employers, giving them the power rather than the employer. I hope that the Government will look very seriously at that point.
It is wrong fundamentally to pull the rug out from people and change the rules halfway through the process. What message does it send about the kind of country we are if our laws and promises hold no meaning and if the British Government can make a deal with someone on a Monday, but by Wednesday, we could have changed our mind? That is part of why these policies have provoked such a reaction: they run against our values. British people believe—and Members across the Chamber have said today—that if a person works hard and plays by the rules, the Government should tread lightly on their life. What someone gets out should be what they put in.
Labour must be clear-eyed about where the real value in our economy lies. It is not with the billionaires and bankers, but with the workers—wherever they come from—who keep this country running every day.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. I am going to reduce the time for speeches to three minutes.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer.
Too often when immigration is spoken about in public discourse, whether in the media, online platforms, or indeed in this House, the tone becomes detached from reality and at times from a basic sense of humanity. I do not know anybody who supports or condones illegal entry into our country, or exploitation of our compassionate rules to take advantage and usurp other people’s rights. However, we must reject the false binary that elites seeking to divide us are all too willing to present: that we have to choose between compassion and prosperity. That is simply not true.
I want to present a real-world example of what a compassionate and beneficial immigration policy might look like: in January 2026, Spain’s left-wing Government issued a royal decree to create a pathway for around 500,000 undocumented migrants to obtain legal residency. To be eligible, migrants were required to have lived in Spain for at least five months—not 30 months, not five years, not 20 years—before application. Eligible individuals could apply for a one-year renewable residence permit, or a five-year permit for children. Permits allow people to work in any sector in any region of Spain.
Why is Spain doing this? To address labour shortages and support economic growth. Spain has argued that undocumented migrants are already contributing to the economy but cannot work legally. The Government say that migration has accounted for 80% of Spain’s economic growth in the past six years. Spain has an ageing population and labour shortages in key sectors, making additional legal workers essential. The reform aims to strengthen the formal labour market and increase tax and social security contributions. The Government also argue that the policy will promote social cohesion and rights integration. It is a model based on human rights, focusing on dignity, inclusion and co-existence. Spain needs an estimated 2.4 million additional workers in the next decade to maintain productivity.
Blake Stephenson
I thought I would intervene to give the hon. Gentleman a little more time. Is he arguing for an amnesty here in the UK? What does he think British citizens would think of such an amnesty? Does he believe that that would be fair or unfair?
Iqbal Mohamed
The reasons why Spain introduced the policy also apply to our country. Whether we address the challenges that both Spain and the UK have in the same way or differently is a question for the House. It is for the Government to make proposals and for the House to contribute to a fair, compassionate, productive and ethical policy. We do not want mass illegal or uncontrolled migration without benefits to our nation.
Spain requires 2.4 million workers in the next 10 years to maintain productivity and to support the pensions system. My question to the Government is, what estimate have they made of how many new workers will be needed in the UK over the next 10 years to maintain productivity and to deliver the Government’s mission for growth, and how will that requirement be fulfilled?
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. I am going to have to reduce the time limit to two minutes. That speech lasted longer than I expected.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for leading this debate. My Government came to power promising a fairer Britain, so I have to ask plainly, who exactly are all these immigration proposals for? They are not designed for the people I represent, who help to keep this country running.
I want to start with the thousands of children and young people who have grown up in the UK and who are being pushed to the margins of the immigration system. They are being made to pay child citizenship fees of £1,214 to register as a British citizen. The Home Office’s own figures show that it makes a profit of £840 on each application. The fee is not an administrative cost; it is a revenue-raising exercise targeted at children, and it results in tens of thousands of children who have a legal right to British citizenship being priced out of it. They do not discover the consequences of that until later in life. Members may be wondering why I am still talking about this issue, given that the Government made a commitment in the House to reduce the financial burden on families and to address the issue specifically, but in all the proposals, I have not heard anything about it, and the fee remains the highest in Europe.
The Government are also proposing to double the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain. The idea that we would apply it retrospectively undermines the foundation of trust on which people make decisions when they come to work in the UK. They put down roots based on the rules that they are given when they apply. Those families are attempting to live and work in this country based on the promises that were made. We will drag people into an endless cycle of visa applications and unpredictable fees, sitting alongside an asylum and accommodation system where private providers make millions from Government contracts despite repeated reports of mismanagement, abuse and dangerous conditions. In turn, we turn around and blame those who are the most vulnerable—those seeking asylum—and change their conditions.
Apsana Begum
On danger and protections, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must maintain the existing protections for survivors of domestic violence who have fled persecution and violence abroad, including the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession and the domestic violence ILR protection?
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. How far have we fallen if we renege on those commitments that we have made, particularly those under the refugee convention? Removing such status or forcibly removing people who have lived here lawfully for a number of years would be in direct contravention of our values as a country.
The Government cannot claim to support integration while pricing children out of citizenship. They cannot talk about fairness while extending the ILR pathway. They cannot promise compassion while allowing profiteering in the immigration system, while reneging on commitments and demonising asylum seekers. We need to build an immigration system that reflects not just our economic priorities, but our values as a country. These reforms do neither.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing this vital debate. I am well-known for believing in immigration for those who need it, those who have a desire to assimilate and those who wish to make a new life for their families and become part of the fabric of British life. I believe in asylum for the few who are persecuted for their faith. They should be given an opportunity to apply for immigration status and to work and raise their families.
I think of those who come to the Ulster hospital, the Royal Victoria hospital and the Belfast City hospital—those who have emigrated here, pay their national insurance and their tax here and keep the A&Es in all those hospitals going. That is really important. But I do not believe in an unrestricted flow of immigration for those who jump in a plastic or rubber boat in Calais and come across—economic migrants who are fit and well.
In the very short time I have, I want to make a point about the fishing fleet, which faces what I believe is unnecessary immigration reform. The new English language thresholds being introduced in 2026 create a huge barrier to bringing new crew into the industry from overseas. The phasing-out of the temporary shortage list for the end of 2026 means that we will no longer be able to bring in foreign crew to Northern Ireland to work on fishing vessels and will only be able to renew the visas of those who already work here. That means that in 12 months we stand to lose 70% of our workers, which will tie up close to 100% of our fleet.
I ask the Minister, who is a decent person and always replies very positively: can we have a meeting to discuss the bespoke visa system for fishing roles in the short and medium term? We need a mechanism to ensure that the industry does not fall during that period, while we do the necessary work to achieve more domestic recruitment. I ask the Minister to ensure that we have that meeting to prevent the implosion of the fishing industry due to the pressure on crews and vessels. Immigration is the lifeblood of our nation, but it must be controlled and in the national interest. We need to find that balance and find it soon—indeed, we need to find it before it is too late.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. The flurry of interventions that we have had over the last three speeches has meant that we have gone two or three minutes over time. I will reduce the time available to the spokespeople for the three parties by a minute each, and ask each of them to take nine minutes.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer.
I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing the debate. He and I served together on the Committee that considered the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, where we proposed amendments to lift the ban on refugees working, and to provide for humanitarian visas to introduce safe and legal routes. I am pleased to work in partnership with him again to support our vulnerable refugees.
I want to start with what the Law Society says about the Government’s proposals:
“The Home Secretary’s proposals to increase the time for migrants to be eligible for settlement from five to ten years lack clarity, risks unfairness and may undermine rule-of-law principles.
The changes must not be applied retrospectively to those already in the UK in a way that would disadvantage them. To do so would run counter to the rule of law, undermine business planning and reduce flexibility and movement in the labour market.
The proposed changes are impacting businesses now, with our member law firms reporting that international hires are declining job offers. This is due to the uncertainty over their plans to build a life in the UK for them and their family. Our members who practice immigration law are left unable to advise clients with any certainty.
These changes risk the UK’s reputation as a centre for global talent and undermine business’s ability to recruit the best people for the job. In an increasingly competitive global services market, it is imperative that the UK can stay ahead and be an attractive destination for talent.”
I would welcome the Minister’s response to the Law Society’s damning assessment of the Government’s immigration reforms.
I will admit that this Government have inherited an absolute mess and a chaotic asylum and immigration system from the Conservatives, who deliberately did not process asylum applications in order to put people off coming to this country. That was a failure both for taxpayers and for putting immigrants off coming here. It means that we spend £6 million a day on asylum hotels.
However, another party is responsible for this mess: Reform. Last week, when we debated immigration, Reform MPs were not here; today, when we are debating immigration, they are not here. Brexit boats now cross the channel, resulting in deaths. Reform’s pursuit of Brexit has resulted in that, yet its MPs are absent from the debate. They need to be held to account for what they have done. The Dublin regulation has already been mentioned: we used not to have these channel crossings, and we used to be able to solve this problem by working with European partners, and it is vital that we get back to that situation.
There are huge benefits to immigration, which some colleagues have talked about, but some have tried to undermine this afternoon. Immigrants are statistically more likely to be employed in the health and social care, hospitality and agriculture sectors. Foreign-born individuals are more likely to be in work than UK-born citizens. Those remarks are not from a “woke” institution, but from the House of Commons Library. Immigrants make this country better financially and culturally, and we need to stand up for the benefits that immigration brings.
I will highlight agriculture. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) warned that the Home Office’s decision to end visas for around 75 specialist overseas sheep shearers risks up to 1.5 million sheep going unshorn, creating both an animal welfare problem and a food shortage. The Home Office had no answer to that warning by my right hon. Friend, as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I hope the Minister will be able to respond to it this afternoon—or if not, take it away. It is a crisis of the Government’s own making, and it needs to be corrected.
I will take in turn some of the particular issues that the Government are introducing. ILR should not be retrospective, and I would welcome the Minister’s views on what assessment the Government have made of the legal challenges if it were made retrospective. I am pleased that the Government have done yet another U-turn and agreed to lift the ban on asylum seekers and refugees working—but, despite the fact they are so in love with the rules of Denmark, they have made the rule one year rather than six months. Why have they not followed Denmark?
I also want to talk about the Government’s proposal to review refugee status for every refugee, every two and a half years, for 20 years. The Government do not seem to be able to make a decision on applicants and then cope with the appeals, yet they are adding more work for themselves. Can the Minister give me a cast-iron guarantee that the Home Office can cope?
I want to briefly mention student visas. In Afghanistan, women and girls have been persecuted just because of their gender. Last year, the Home Office closed safe and legal routes for Afghan women, and this month it closed them for women studying. What does the Minister, who I know has a heart and soul, say to that?
Finally, I was last in this Chamber to talk about homeless people, and I want to mention homeless refugees, and particularly their families. The Government have changed the rules on move-on rights, and that has had a profound impact. There have been exemptions for pregnant women and disabled and elderly people; will the Minister agree to ensure that the move-on rate is changed to exempt families with children?
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I host a researcher from an asylum charity in my office. I am sure that the Minister is glad to have a friendly face in this debate, so it is particular pleasure to speak and to congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing it. I agree entirely with what he said about the timeliness of the debate. It has been a very broad-ranging one, so I will make a few observations on the debate and then finish with some questions, which I hope the Minister might address.
It is clear that there is a degree of commonality between the official Opposition and the Government on many of the measures that are being brought forward. As the Leader of the Opposition said very clearly, the Government will have our support in implementing them, should they run into any difficulties in that respect. However, it is also clear that many of the challenges around asylum and migration, like many of the challenges that face our Government and our country more generally, are getting worse. The situation is deteriorating.
My own entry into this area of work came because, as a local councillor, I saw the consequences for communities of the arrival of very large numbers of asylum seekers. Indeed, to this day, the Hillingdon part of my constituency has the highest per capita level of asylum seekers of any local authority area in the country, with more than 100 different first languages. Diversity and dealing with these issues at a local level are things with which my constituents and I are extremely familiar.
Over those years, we have had many debates—I will touch on this in my questions to the Minister—about how we ensure a fair and appropriate dispersal of asylum seekers across the country. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire is now hosting some asylum seekers dispersed into his constituency—but for many decades local authorities in Scotland, for example, demanded a more liberal approach to our borders in respect of asylum seekers, while absolutely refusing to be dispersal areas for those people when they were here. While the 31 mostly Conservative authorities in south-east England volunteered to become asylum dispersal areas, the plea fell on deaf ears north of the border.
It is clear that no party has a monopoly on practical compassion when it comes to support for those who seek refuge in our country. Indeed, we can thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), now the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, for the actions that he took during his time as our Home Secretary, which produced the significant fall in net migration into this country, which this Government have seen as a benefit.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) outlined in reference to his report, there remain significant concerns about putting the appropriate package of measures in place to ensure that our borders are robustly and consistently controlled. We need to make sure that these debates are happening. One thing that is very clear—I expect that most of us, as politicians, will have heard this while canvassing—is that voters tend to be very positive about all the migrants they personally know. They like the ones who run the local shop, who work in the GP practice, who drive the bus or who are their next-door neighbours. It is all the others they are worried about. There is therefore a big job of work about demystification.
When we as Conservatives, in the previous Government, decided to open the door to large numbers of refugees from Hong Kong—people who were traditionally associated with our country and had a right to be here under that scheme—it gained very widespread public acceptance. The same was true of the Ukraine refugee scheme. We need to make sure that we have tough measures in place around illegal migration and an appropriate and compassionate response to those in need.
Iqbal Mohamed
Going back to back-door migration, does the hon. Member agree that the comments made by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) were about issues under his Government that were inherited by this Labour Government, not created by them? Can the hon. Member explain why the previous Government allowed those back-door routes to exist and why they did not take action to stop them when they were in power?
David Simmonds
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) spoke about the absence of Members from certain parties from this Chamber. Those colleagues who we saw scuttling off to Reform have serious questions to answer about why, when given free rein in the Home Office, they failed to implement even the measures that this Labour Government have brought forward to address some of the loopholes that the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) highlighted.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) described some of the characteristics of illegal migration. I have been to Calais and I have seen the drone footage gathered by the French police of the boats on the beaches and the camps set up by the traffickers who are bringing people over, and it is clear that we should be robust and extremely cautious. I have watched footage of people in those boats who, seeing the police approach, pick up children and throw them in the sea, knowing that the police will have to rescue them rather than stop the migrant boat. We should make no apology for taking robust action to address those concerns.
Jim Shannon
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern—I think he probably does—that on many occasions, the French police seem to sit back and do nothing, and let the whole process go ahead? That poses the question whether this Labour Government’s agreement with the French Government means anything at all.
David Simmonds
I do not entirely share that view. I have seen the challenges that the French police face, with something like 1,000 members of their constabulary covering 10,000 km of coastline. The traffickers will sometimes send 50 or 100 boats to sea simultaneously, knowing that there is no way that the French police can possibly deter them. Each of those boats is worth €70,000 to €80,000-worth of revenue to their criminal enterprise, so they have a big incentive.
The Minister is here in an honourable tradition of Labour Governments taking robust action on our borders. The first immigration controls that our country ever had were introduced by the post-war Labour Government in response to concerns about the exit from empire. No recourse to public funds, the first time that asylum seekers were taken out of the standard benefits system and eligibility for council housing, was introduced by the Blair Government. The asylum dispersal system was introduced by the now Mayor of Greater Manchester when he was the Immigration Minister in those years.
On the Conservative side of the Chamber, we are broadly supportive of the measures based on the Danish model that are being brought forward by the Home Secretary. We remain very concerned, however, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire have highlighted, that many of those measures will still fall short and that our constituents’ concerns will remain.
In the spirit of a constructive approach, may I ask the Minister whether he has given any further consideration to the idea of an asylum visa, going beyond the simple prospect of safe and legal routes? If people wish to study, work, come to get married or live in the United Kingdom for any other reason, they have to apply for a visa, but we do not have any such measures in place for asylum seekers, and that is helping to drive the illegal traffic across the channel.
What discussions is the Minister having across Government about avoiding cost shunts, which are an increasing concern and a consequence of speeding up asylum decision making—in particular, the rapid rise in the cost of temporary accommodation for local authorities as asylum seekers get status and turn up at the town hall seeking help or are left destitute in local communities? What consideration will the Minister give to using protocol 16 of the European convention on human rights, since it is clear that UK tribunals go well beyond the provisions of that protocol in many cases, to ensure that we are not doing more than we should be doing?
Even with all those questions, I can assure the Minister that as the official Opposition we will be providing support in the Lobbies to ensure that those measures are implemented, even if we remain of the view that they should go further.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
We have little time, Minister, so please try to leave a minute or two at the end of your speech for the winding-up speech.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer; I shall certainly follow that direction. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate, on a topic he clearly feels very passionate about. He spoke with great power, while also providing a forum for colleagues to do the same and raise interesting and important global, national, regional and local issues.
I will seek to cover the wide range of issues that have been raised in this debate, but I start by saying this, because I did not hear it enough in the hon. Gentleman’s contribution: the system at the moment is disorderly and uncontrolled. The people with the most agency in the system now are human traffickers. I appreciate the power and the anger with which he spoke, but I know that he has the same power and anger towards those individuals.
Personally, I would like to have heard more on that, because we know what the consequences are across the country. Public confidence on this issue is subterranean. The hon. Gentleman made a lot of points about politics, but actually this is much bigger than party politics. Public confidence in the mainstream to deliver meaningful change in this space is subterranean. This is the last go for the mainstream to do this. We know that public order, as a result, is in jeopardy. We must be really careful; I appeal to all hon. Members that there must be no progressive defence of the status quo—they would never hear that from the Government Front Bench. There is only the absolute need to act.
That is set against the instincts of the British people. I know from my own community, in which it is no secret that the immigration conversation is difficult, that those same people who raised those concerns with me about the disorder and lack of control are the same people who leant into the Afghan resettlement scheme, the Syrian scheme, the Hong Kong British national overseas scheme—for which we have one of the biggest populations in the country—and Homes for Ukraine, in which people are literally opening their homes. That showed that when there was control in the system and order, and when we knew those coming forward genuinely needed protection, the community would lean into it. That is an awful lot to build on.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the edges of the argument, but I say to him that the edges of the argument at the moment embody, on one side, a nightmarish vision of a Britain that closes its borders, puts up high walls and offers sanctuary to no one; and on the other, a fairytale that pretends that we can do it in all circumstances with all people. That is not right, and the public know it.
I will cover the points that the hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members have made, but I do want to address some of the things the hon. Gentleman said in opening that are simply wrong, starting with the idea that the Home Secretary has changed refuge rules overnight from being permanent to temporary. That is not the case. It used to be a five-year grant of settlement; it is now a two-and-a-half-year one. I will explain shortly how that will work in practice, but that is not the change he described.
The hon. Gentleman also said that the Home Secretary will arbitrarily, at the stroke of a pen, overturn individuals’ protection needs. Again, that is not true. Everybody’s protection need will be individually assessed. I am a white, middle-aged, cisgendered, heterosexual man, but someone who looks like me—just as good looking, Mr Stringer—could be gay, and they would not be safe in certain contexts. That principle will always be the case under this Government, and it is an established principle in this democracy.
The hon. Gentleman talked about it making it impossible to find work. Again, that is not at all the intention, which I will cover when I talk about core protection. He talked about the contraction of safe and legal routes. I am proud that, through our asylum policy statement, this Government were willing to stand up when it was politically difficult to do so, and say that we want to break the model of the traffickers who transport people to this country illegally, while providing safe and legal routes.
I cannot accept, however, that time-limited university schemes designed for an individual to come for one, three or four years—an agreement made between that individual with the state and the university—should act as a de facto asylum system. That cannot be right, which is why we are replacing it. However, I heard a lot from the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues that I found heartening with regards to the desire to provide sanctuary, for everyone to have an opportunity to contribute to this country and for integration, because we share those desires, too.
I will now turn to some of the points on illegal migration. First, on core protection, the 30-month permission, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), is there because, if individuals come to this country and get refuge, but then sit at home without learning the language or contributing to society, we believe that is no life. It is not good for the individual or the collective. If they switch to the protected work and study route, which means they are either working or learning, and are learning the language, not committing crimes, and taking part in society, they can take themselves out of that 30-month renewal regime. It is exactly designed to give people the opportunity to contribute, which is what colleagues have wanted. I think that that is the right balance between the individual and the collective.
The issue of visa brakes was raised by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, and by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) when he talked about “back doors”. It is a really important point. From the four countries for which we implemented visa brakes—Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan—asylum applications had risen to more than 470% of their 2021 level. In the case of Afghanistan, 93% of those students—all of whom said they had come to the country for a time-limited period—claimed asylum. If that, as the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire posits, demonstrates that there is a need for an asylum-linked study route, I agree, actually. He knows that the Home Secretary has already announced that we intend to bring that in. But this Parliament and this Government should be the ones to set the terms of that, rather than universities themselves. That must surely be the right balance.
The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), talked about our commitment to people from Afghanistan. He knows that in the past few years, we have brought 35,000 people over via safe and legal means. Again, we will offer those protected visa routes, but that should be a decision for this country’s democracy, rather than a decision for universities.
My hon. Friend the Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Alloa and Grangemouth and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) talked about values —something I think about a lot. First, the idea of an orderly system—one that takes the agency away from the traffickers, closes down illegal routes into the country and opens up safe and legal ones—sits squarely within the mainstream of Labour’s traditions. The idea that we incentivise by making the best route to settlement by working and contributing, being a good neighbour and not committing crime, is also rooted in the values of our movement. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) covered that point very well. I am proud that we are part of a Government who have been willing—even when it is politically difficult—to say that we intend to pivot the model in that way.
Brian Leishman
I appreciate it, and I will be quick. I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but could he clarify what he thinks, with regard to Labour values, about the horrendous social media posts that we have seen, showing people being bundled into the backs of vans?
Alex Norris
That is a very important point. If people are failed asylum seekers or foreign national offenders, and have no right to be in the country, they should be removed. There is a challenge: public confidence, as I have said, is so, so low. It must be demonstrated that that takes place—I have that conversation with constituents, and they do not always believe me. If my hon. Friend thinks that it is too route one, I accept that challenge, but I cannot accept that we do not need to tell that story, because we absolutely do.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked for a meeting about fishing; I will make sure that it happens with me or with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp). For sheep shearers, we have announced the one-year extension.
A number of colleagues raised settlement issues—I will not name them all—including my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), who is no longer in her place. We will retain existing safeguards around domestic violence and abuse. On earned settlement, again, it is about ensuring that people’s contributions are recognised, so that working and earning, learning the language and not committing crimes can accelerate a person’s route to settlement. That is why we brought it in.
On the point about retrospection, it has always been the case that the rules apply at the point of application, not at the point of entry. Nevertheless, colleagues know that we consulted—the consultation only recently closed, and it had 200,000 contributions. We are looking very carefully at it—transitional protection was an element of it, and we will return to it. The hon. Member for Woking asked me what I thought of what the Law Society has said about a lack of clarity. I defend the principle that we are consulting and thereby creating clarity. I think that that is the right balance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) made interesting points about common sponsorship, and I am talking to the union movement about that. We are looking at it closely. I have covered a number of points that were made in what has been an interesting debate.
Pete Wishart
I wish I had more than a few seconds to sum up what has been an important and significant debate. There are a couple of things that I thought would happen: first, that most of his Back Benchers would be totally against what the Minister said, and secondly, that the Tories would totally agree with this Labour Government on all things immigration and asylum. Those are the friends that the Minister keeps. This is an important debate that is shaping the new dynamic in this country. Profound change is happening. The Minister is on the wrong side of this. Conservative Members are quite content to support this Labour Government. I urge the Minister: review where you are. It is not working. You will continue to get hammered in subsequent by-elections—
Jim Shannon
On a point of order, Mr Stringer. This is not a criticism of yourself, but when the list of speakers is presented to the Chair for consideration, I understood that the protocol and rules of the House were that if those on the list intervened, they would go to the bottom of the list, while those whose names were on the list but had not intervened would be brought to the top. Can you clarify that that is the rule? That is how I and others understand it, but today, that rule was not followed.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
It is guidance, as opposed to a rule. With the exception of yourself, I did put to the end of the list those people who had intervened.
Jim Shannon
I ask the Clerk to check that, because my understanding is that that did not happen.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. We must start the next debate.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Child Maintenance Service
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effectiveness of the Child Maintenance Service.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I declare an interest, as I am currently involved in a tribunal with the Department for Work and Pensions concerning my own child maintenance service case, which I will not refer to today.
I am bringing this motion before the House to highlight the urgent need for reform to the child maintenance service, particularly how it deals with post-separation abuse. What should be a system designed to support children is, in reality, too often used by perpetrators as a means of continuing both psychological and economic control and abuse.
For many victim-survivors of domestic abuse, leaving a relationship is the hardest step they will ever take, particularly when children are involved. It is a moment of courage, relief and when they hope the worst is finally behind them. What too many discover is that the abuse does not end when they leave; it simply changes form. Again and again, I hear from survivors who tell me the same thing: the child maintenance service has just become another arena in which the abuse can continue.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
My constituent Megan contacted me to say that she has escaped from her abusive former partner, who is supposed to be contributing less than £1 a day towards their child’s needs, but is not even managing that, although he does have influence over key decisions such as schooling and where they live. The domestic abuse is therefore still persisting, even though she has left her former partner. The child maintenance service is being weaponised against victims. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have a clear responsibility to help people such as my constituent Megan and her child?
Kirith Entwistle
That is exactly why this debate matters. I will come on to some of the points my hon. Friend raised.
When a public service not only allows, but actively facilitates, the continuation of abuse and fails to recognise the realities of coercive control, it is not just flawed; it is unjust. The national evidence is deeply concerning. Research by Gingerbread, a charity supporting single-parent families, found that 77% of primary carers using the CMS reported experiencing domestic abuse from the other parent.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. This is a massive issue in my constituency, as it is in hers. In Northern Ireland, a large proportion of parents relying on the CMS face difficulties in receiving timely maintenance, which directly impacts child poverty and family stability. Does she agree that there may be a lack of staff, and that to ensure that the CMS system operates effectively for families not just in her constituency, but in Northern Ireland, more needs to be done to reduce the backlogs and secure the financial support that their children are entitled to?
Kirith Entwistle
Absolutely.
Even more troubling is that 45% of the parents in that research said that the CMS’s involvement had actually led to an increase in abusive behaviour. Those figures should stop us in our tracks.
For survivors, the very experience of using the CMS can be deeply distressing. From the cold tone of emails and letters to the aggressive and harsh text messages, right through to the opaque way payments are calculated, the process can be deeply triggering for those who have experienced abuse. At the very beginning, survivors are asked whether they have experienced abuse and what form that abuse took. For a moment, there is hope that the system might understand the gravity of that disclosure, but what follows is often little more than signposting to a list of organisations before the process simply continues as though the question had never been asked.
Ultimately, the disclosure changes nothing. There is no meaningful change in how the case is handled, no structural safeguards and no recognition that the dynamics of abuse may shape the entire case. Crucially, it does nothing to change the tone of communications with the CMS. For someone who has taken enormous personal risk to leave an abusive partner, that can feel like jumping out of a plane only to find that there is no parachute, no safe landing and no one to catch them when they fall.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
My team has been absolutely inundated with child maintenance service casework. I agree with the hon. Member’s point about the faceless nature of the service and how unhelpful—in fact, damaging—that is to people who have been subject to domestic abuse.
Some constituents’ cases show a clear and worrying pattern of one parent’s evidence being approved when there is clear evidence on the other side that it is a lie, to use rather frank terms. There are some accounts from constituents who have been driven to suicidal ideation because of the shambles of the system, so I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this matter today.
Kirith Entwistle
The hon. Member is absolutely right. I will come on to that issue shortly.
Surely we must ask whether this is really the standard we are willing to accept. Another fundamental weakness lies in how the CMS deals with shared care, in that it absolutely fails to do so. In theory, maintenance calculations are meant to reflect the number of nights a child spends with each parent; in reality, the system largely relies on what parents report themselves. Rather than establishing the reality of shared care, the number of nights is effectively averaged out based on those reports, with no evidence required. When parents try to push back and provide evidence, that is often disregarded unless a court order is in place.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. As a child of divorced parents way before the CMS came into existence, I know that the whole issue of how much the paying parent should pay and getting them to pay on time is extremely stressful—for the children as well.
My hon. Friend raised good points about child maintenance being routinely weaponised. Collect and pay may help lots of families by making it harder for abusers to withhold payment, but I know from my caseload that many parents say that income is being hidden and that the CMS is allowing that income to be hidden—if a parent is self-employed or becomes a “director”, for example. Does she agree that the CMS must be equipped to find that hidden income?
Kirith Entwistle
My hon. Friend raises a particularly important point. I will come on to the collect and pay service and how that is also broken.
The result of how the CMS deals with shared care is a system that accepts unverified claims, but refuses genuine evidence. It is confusing, adversarial and often deeply unfair. The structure of the CMS also creates the wrong incentives. When maintenance calculations change depending on the number of nights a child spends with each parent, disputes over care arrangements quickly become disputes over money. Fortalice, a leading domestic abuse charity in my town of Bolton, is all too aware of that problem. It tells me of cases where a parent seeks increased overnight contact—not because that is in the child’s best interests, but to reduce their CMS payments or claim additional financial support. Children should never become bargaining chips in financial disputes.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. We are all here because we have been inundated with issues and complaints about the CMS. One of the things I hear about over and over again is the lack of communication. Does the hon. Member agree that if the CMS got the communication right, some of these disputes might not escalate to the point where they become very troublesome indeed?
Kirith Entwistle
As I mentioned earlier, there is a big issue with how the CMS communicates with both parents.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
We have all received casework on this subject. I often find that what I can only term incompetence by the CMS enables non-resident parents to shirk financial responsibility—at the expense of the child, at the end of the day. Does my hon. Friend agree that we in Government must look into these issues and take decisive action to ensure that the CMS is fit for purpose, gets a grip and actually does the job we are asking it to do?
Kirith Entwistle
I completely agree. These issues are not theoretical; I see them repeatedly in cases raised by my own constituents in Bolton. One constituent, who I will call Emily, left an abusive relationship and is still dealing with the consequences through the CMS. She describes intimidation and harassment from the father of her children, alongside unreliable maintenance payments. Money arrives late, arrives short or does not arrive at all. Her case remains on direct pay, meaning that the system still relies on co-operation between parents, even when there is a history of abuse. For many survivors, that is not a neutral arrangement: it can mean ongoing contact with the person they are trying to escape and persistent fear about what will happen if they challenge missing payments.
Emily has repeatedly asked for her case to be moved to collect and pay, so that payments can be handled through the CMS without that direct interaction, yet delays, missed call-backs and poor communication have left her stuck in a process that exposes her to distress and financial uncertainty. Other frontline charities in Bolton, such as Endeavour, tell me that they see that pattern all too regularly. Survivors describe payments being withheld, not because the other parent cannot afford to pay but because that unpredictability becomes a form of control. Many report that payments stop just before birthdays, Christmas or school holidays, only to restart later. That pattern is not random; it is about maintaining power. Survivors tell us that they feel trapped by the CMS, and we absolutely must listen.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
One of my constituents has raised this issue with me; she is owed nearly £6,000. She says:
“What makes me most mad is if he paid, I wouldn’t need UC to top up my wages. The government is paying twice, once for chasing him and once for covering him.”
Is the system not completely broken?
Kirith Entwistle
That is such a powerful point, and I am really sorry on behalf of my hon. Friend’s constituent. Sadly, that is not an isolated case.
Some say that they are asked to pay far more than they can afford, while others say that the support they receive does not come close to covering the cost of raising their children. When they try to seek clarification, they hit another problem with the CMS: inconsistency. Different advisers give different answers, and staff are working from guidance rather than clear, consistent rules. As a result, parents can end up receiving conflicting advice from the very organisation that is meant to support them and their children through a difficult time.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for being so brave in introducing this debate; many of us have dealt with this issue on a daily basis.
There is an issue of fairness in the allocation of the rules. I had one father who tried to kill himself because he felt that there was no allocation of fairness in what he was trying to do for his family. The rules do not seem to be clear cut, and there does not seem to be a way through for families who want to work together. The system seems to disproportionately favour the spouse who is willing to lie and say things about the other, and that has to change. It is just not sustainable.
Kirith Entwistle
Absolutely. The system is fundamentally broken. Children must be at the heart of any decision made about them. It is important to recognise that many parents, particularly single mothers, who have experienced abuse do not use the CMS at all. They avoid it because engaging with the system may mean renewed contact with the very person they are trying to escape. They do not see the CMS as protection, but merely as another channel through which a perpetrator can exert control.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for the reform of the CMS. My constituent has been hounded by her ex-partner, with eight consecutive investigations by the CMS triggered by his complaints about her. It has ultimately caused her to give up work. Does my hon. Friend agree that vexatious complaints such as those must be identified and prevented from taking up CMS resources and allowing the continuation of financial abuse?
Kirith Entwistle
Absolutely. My hon. Friend raises yet another issue with the CMS and highlights just how badly the system is set up.
Mothers struggle on alone, absorbing financial pressure themselves rather than risking opening the door to further abuse. That should deeply concern this House. We must remember what is at stake. Child maintenance exists for one reason: to support the quality of life and wellbeing of children. Yet the experiences that we have all described suggest that children are being drawn into adult conflict, rather than being protected and shielded from it.
In the worst cases, the CMS allows children to be weaponised by perpetrators; I can make no stronger point than that. How can we possibly continue with a service that allows that to happen—a service that effectively tells perpetrators that more overnight contact may mean lower maintenance payments; a service where the amount paid can be disputed, delayed or manipulated because the rules are unclear; a service where weak enforcement allows some parents to evade their responsibilities altogether; and a service that some survivors avoid entirely because it does not feel safe?
Campaigning organisations, such as Gingerbread, have already set out practical proposals for change, and I would be grateful if the Minister could address three areas where the system must work better for survivors and their children. First, we need a genuinely child-centred approach to maintenance so that decisions about contact and payments are driven by children’s wellbeing, rather than financial incentives. Secondly, disclosures of domestic abuse must trigger meaningful safeguards, not mere signposting or lip service. There must also be clearer evidential standards for shared care, particularly where no court order is in place. Finally, survivors should have better access to collect and pay alongside a named caseworker so they are not forced into ongoing contact with perpetrators or required to repeat traumatic experiences.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. Has she noticed that child maintenance payments are being stopped when an ex-partner applies for child benefit? That is another source of income that is being manipulated by a partner to keep the money from the parent who is looking after the children.
Kirith Entwistle
Absolutely; it is just another vehicle being used by perpetrators to continue that post-separation abuse.
At its heart, this debate is about the lives of children growing up in separated families across the country. The child maintenance service was created with the intention of supporting those children, but when the system allows post-separation abuse to continue, when it leaves survivors feeling unheard and unsafe, and when children are drawn into that harm, it is clear that reform is urgently needed. The question we must ask ourselves is simple: can we honestly continue with a system that allows children to be weaponised by perpetrators of abuse? I do not believe that we can.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I will call Vikki Slade, but I want to hear from the Minister because this is an important debate. I am going to restrict the hon. Lady to two minutes.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) on securing the debate, and I thank her and the Minister for allowing me time to speak. I will cut to the chase to make sure that the cases I want to reference are heard. I have raised this issue so many times in this House, and it is disappointing that we have only 30 minutes when so many Members wish to speak.
Mark was abused by a partner, but was not believed until she attacked another man. He paid for his child, but was banned from seeing them for six years. It is only now that the court has redressed that injustice. Sarah was forced to undergo the indignity of DNA testing, despite years of her ex-partner seeking custody of their children. He now pays one penny a month in arrears. Nicola’s ex has taken to working abroad to avoid payments. His arrears are going to take 471 years to clear.
After I spoke about this issue in the Chamber last month, 1.2 million people viewed my video and 5,000 people contacted me—mums and dads from across the country with harrowing stories. While most were women who recognised my constituent’s experience, hundreds of men also wrote to me about being denied access, losing money directly from their accounts and being pushed to breaking point. Some told me about men who had taken their lives after being overwhelmed by the CMS process.
The House of Lords has concluded that parts of the CMS are no longer fit for purpose, and it is really time to make this change. We must make sure that people are not hiding income. It is not fair that resident parents are still having to pay their bills to their landlords and Tesco, but non-resident parents can deduct everything else before their child maintenance. That simply does not work.
I know that colleagues across Parliament, from every party and every region, have called for this debate, but debate is not enough. We need to have a full consultation, to learn lessons from other countries that manage child support better, and, ultimately, to have a White Paper so we can create a positive legacy for separated families. I am holding a roundtable on Friday, not just with my own constituents but with all of these people who have asked me for help. We must change this system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I am struck, as was the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), by the level of interest in this debate and, indeed, by the specifics of some of the cases that have been raised. I concur with her that this is an incredibly important debate, and one that perhaps could have used more time. I am sure that Members will look where they can at various mechanisms to ensure that we return to this in future.
I want to begin by recognising the vital role that the Child Maintenance Service plays in supporting families across the country, notwithstanding that we all have examples in our casework of challenging cases—cases where the service could do better. The CMS now supports more than 1.1 million children, a figure that rose nearly 5% in the 12 months to September 2025, through both family-based arrangements and arrangements made via the CMS. An estimated £2.9 billion is transferred each year to children in separated families, keeping around 120,000 children out of relative low income after housing costs.
I know that almost all parents want the best for their children, and that, in spite of the difficulties and conflicts inherent in family break-up, a majority of paying parents consistently contribute towards their children’s upbringing, helping to ensure that they receive the support they need. Compliance levels within the collect and pay service remain strong; in the most recent reporting quarter, 74% of paying parents under collect and pay paid maintenance.
To set the scene, it is worth explaining how the CMS operates. The CMS is statutorily obliged to consider all valid maintenance applications in accordance with relevant legislation. To ensure consistency and fairness across the system, the CMS applies a set of broad rules intended to secure the best overall outcomes for all parents. Clear, simple rules are essential; they make the system more efficient, improve customer service and are vital when dealing with hundreds of thousands of cases.
That is in stark contrast to previous schemes operated by the CMS’s predecessor, the Child Support Agency, which were notoriously complex and inflexible. Those schemes relied heavily on parents providing detailed financial information that was often difficult to obtain or keep up to date. The result was significant delays and, too often, families being let down.
That said, the Government recognise that there is more that the CMS can do to deliver a fair and trustworthy service that is more accessible to parents, and particularly to those who are vulnerable. That is why the CMS is continuing to make significant and meaningful improvements to the service wherever possible, to ensure that parents feel informed, supported and confident in the actions being taken on their case.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for setting the scene. Would he reflect back to the House that, notwithstanding what he has said, there is a clear pattern of a lack of reliable communication, a failure to enforce payments and what often seems like an inability to keep in line with legislation? Does he recognise that what we are all experiencing on behalf of our constituents is an organisation that does not seem to have basic administrative competence?
Andrew Western
I will come to the points about communication and enforcement momentarily. I acknowledge that we all have difficult cases, but the CMS does handle billions of pounds a year in payments to families, and it is important to recognise where it works as well as where change is needed. It is failing for some families, as in the cases that have been outlined, and we want to put that right.
I will now turn to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle). I will start with the three asks from Gingerbread. First, on the disclosure of domestic abuse and the handling thereof, the CMS recognises that both receiving and paying parents can be victims of domestic abuse, including coercive and controlling behaviour, and it has put a number of safeguards in place to help them use the service safely. All caseworkers receive extensive domestic abuse training, which has been refreshed to reflect the Home Office’s statutory guidance on controlling or coercive behaviour, so that they are equipped to identify risks and signpost parents to specialist support. The CMS also has a domestic abuse plan and a regularly updated list of resources to support victims.
Where safety concerns arise, though—I accept that they arise in some instances—the CMS can advise on non-traceable payment methods, such as accounts with centralised sort codes to ensure a parent’s location cannot be identified. The Government are also taking wider steps to minimise opportunities for abuse within the maintenance system, perhaps most importantly through plans to remove direct pay, reducing the need for any contact between parents and closing off avenues for economic control or coercion.
The second point concerned evidential standards for shared care, which is a contested area. I absolutely accept that it is a difficult space for our caseworkers to operate in. When a dispute arises regarding overnight stays, the CMS must avoid taking one parent’s word against the other and must consider certain types of evidence, such as a court order or an agreement between the parents, but it may consider other types of evidence as well, including in cases where a court order is not in place. Formal evidence will carry more weight than other evidence in establishing whether there is a pattern of shared care, but the CMS will consider each parent’s statements before making a decision.
Where the parties agree in principle that there is a level of shared care but cannot agree on a number of nights, the CMS can make an assumption of shared care of one night a week, but as I said earlier, shared care disputes are challenging. We understand the frustration and the concerns that they present for parents, and we are keeping the issue under active review and looking at how the process can be improved. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East is due a conversation with my noble Friend Baroness Sherlock. She may want to ask Baroness Sherlock for the specifics on that, given that she is the lead Minister on this issue.
Gingerbread’s third substantive point concerned the welfare of the child, and I want to offer reassurance on that. Clearly, the entire point of the CMS is to ensure the welfare of the child as it pertains to financial stability and to ensure the ability of parents to look after their children, but if specific safeguarding concerns arise, there are procedures in place to report them to the relevant authority, which is usually the local authority where the child lives.
There were a couple of other points that I want to touch on, including the question of enforcement. Clearly, there are always improvements to be made. There was a specific question about hidden income. There is a financial investigation unit in place. If there are specific cases that colleagues would like me to refer to that unit, I am happy to do so. We do have, for want of a better description, persistent offenders who are difficult to pin down. We will all have such examples in our caseload, and we are looking at what more we can do to track people down in those cases.
I am conscious of time. This has been an incredibly important debate. The door of my noble Friend Baroness Sherlock is always open to colleagues who want to talk about CMS reform. We are undertaking a calculation review. We are looking to abolish direct pay as soon as parliamentary time allows. That is a very important step to tackle coercive control and abuse in the system. We can always do more. I am happy to speak to colleagues at any point, but I also strongly encourage them, if necessary, to book in with my noble Friend.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Rural Roads
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Can hon. Members leave quietly, please? We wish to start the debate.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the condition of roads in rural areas.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, especially on a topic as important as road conditions in rural areas such as South Shropshire. We will all know that there is no place like South Shropshire, with its outstanding beauty, vast countryside and beautiful winding country roads—but those country roads are where we see the issue.
A dangerous trap has arisen for many of my residents and many of the people who come to see such a beautiful area: its beauty has been blighted by potholes, which are causing a major issue. I have in my area some roads that are now damaging the tyres of tractors when they are travelling along them—let us imagine what that would do to a moped or bike. My constituents do not have to imagine, however, because it has happened numerous times; the son of one constituent in Ludlow hit a pothole recently and wrote off his moped.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman. I spoke to him beforehand about this issue. Insurance claims due to potholes, damage to car rims and tyres, and bicycles driving into potholes and riders going over the handlebars and getting injured—those are just some examples of what has happened back home in my constituency. Insurance claims are going through the roof against the roads Department. Does he agree that the present strategy is penny wise and pound foolish, and that a major strategy to improve rural roads is urgently needed to ensure that people do not get injured and their vehicles do not get damaged?
Stuart Anderson
The hon. Member raises a very good point. I will come on to the preventive measures and what can actually be returned to the economy to help the Department fix this major issue.
Potholes are one of the biggest issues raised with me since I have been an MP, and I am sure the same will be true for many other Members. Obviously when we get bad weather, we see them increase more and more, and that causes a major issue.
There are multiple areas that I would like to cover today. I am not raising one or two anecdotal concerns or bits of evidence; I am raising the more than 2,100 road defects reported to Shropshire council in January alone—that is, in one month. That is almost triple the number of reports in the previous month and double the number in January 2025. I have been told that potholes are not getting fixed quickly enough, which is causing roads to deteriorate and some to become impassable.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I want to highlight the fact that in Scotland we have a particular challenge. Scottish Borders council is responsible for maintaining 1,900 miles of road, which must be one of the biggest distances in the whole of the UK, but in Scotland, because of the decisions that the SNP Government are making, rural local authorities such as Scottish Borders council are being neglected for the sake of the central belt. Does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities need to be funded properly to allow them to fix these many miles of roads?
Stuart Anderson
I do. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There is more money being spent by councils than it costs to fix the roads. I will come on to that in detail in a minute. These are serious issues. I have one constituent that people have stopped visiting because their road is now impassable—talk about remoteness and being cut off in rural areas!
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
As my hon. Friend knows, he is also the Member of Parliament for my mother-in-law, so I congratulate him on all his hard work. [Interruption.] Check the words: I said nothing wrong. One issue hitting rural areas is, of course, road works, because residents cannot just take the next left or right turn and sometimes have to detour for miles. Does my hon. Friend agree that it behoves the utility companies to keep residents informed of any road works they are doing, so that residents can plan their journeys in advance?
Stuart Anderson
We see that across South Shropshire. My hon. Friend’s mother-in-law is a lovely lady and I was delighted to meet her the other week—I get a few points for that. We are finding that Shropshire council is putting cones in the potholes, because they are that big, or putting up traffic lights, and some of the traffic lights are not working. Those have now been up for weeks, and sometimes several months. That is causing an issue, when it is easier to fix the potholes.
There have been a lot of short-term fixes, and we need a longer-term strategy. I set up a survey in my constituency, and 500 people responded in a very short period of time. One in four have experienced vehicle damage, nearly 90% have had a near miss, and 98% said that the roads are in poor or very poor condition. I would love to meet that 2% and see where they are travelling.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing today’s important debate; thousands of residents around the country, maybe hundreds of thousands, will be very grateful for his work. Does he believe that part of the issue is the way that local authorities manage their resurfacing programmes? In our area, unfortunately, Oxfordshire is full of incredibly deep potholes—well below the depth at which other local authorities would intervene—and my Reading residents often cross the boundary and are shocked by the state of the roads. In contrast, our local authority has resurfaced large sections of roads, and this invest-to-save approach has resulted in a better quality of road surface and fewer potholes.
Stuart Anderson
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. There is not one specific issue here; there are multiple issues, as I will come to.
Constituents have talked about the road just outside Ackleton. They tell me it is like driving in a third-world country. A local resident, Barry, commented to me, “You want to come to Claverley, mate. It’s like driving on the moon.” I have been there—Claverley, not the moon—and he is not wrong. From Bridgnorth to Bishop’s Castle, and from Broseley to Ludlow, the whole of South Shropshire is suffering from the poor state of the roads. The roads around Ditton Priors, in particular, are impassable in multiple areas.
I thank the local press for their great reporting on the issues in Church Preen. I took BBC Shropshire’s Rob Trigg there to see some of the worst roads in Shropshire—he was truly shocked by the state of them—and to meet local residents. The roads are actually damaging tractor tyres in that area. It is a major issue.
Let me turn to the cost of vehicle repair, before we get on to potholes and the solutions. More than two thirds of my residents travel to work on the roads. There is a limited rail line, which goes north to south, and only impacts a few people. I live a mile-plus from the nearest bus station, and there are limited buses. More than 27,000 of my constituents travel to work on South Shropshire’s roads every day. The reason this is such a big issue in rural areas is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) mentioned, the number of roads and the distance to travel. One constituent has had a car for 18 months. It was a new car, but it is on its third windscreen and has just recently had a tyre puncture after being damaged on local roads. I have personally replaced two tyres and one wheel on the roads around South Shropshire.
Those issues are not unique. Last year, an astonishing £645 million was spent on repairing vehicles damaged by potholes. That is up from £579 million, and it was £474 million in 2023. Those costs are being borne by all our constituents day in, day out.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his impassioned speech about the state of our roads. I was recently speaking to a driving instructor in my constituency who literally relies for his livelihood on having a car that is on the road. Every day that his car is taken off the road, he loses £250 of income, and over the past two years he has spent more than £600 repairing his car because of potholes. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a human and a business cost when our roads are falling apart?
Stuart Anderson
I do. The hon. Member raises a really good point. This is not just about a pothole in the road; it is about the impact on people’s lives and businesses.
That leads me on very nicely to my next point. This is not just about car damage; it is about road safety. We are talking about people’s lives here. Beyond damage to a tire, which can be upsetting or annoying, and is not what anyone wants to see, there is also an impact on safety and people’s lives. People swerve to miss potholes. Why do they swerve? They swerve because the pothole might not have been there a few days earlier, or they might be driving on a new road. It could be at night. It could be raining. All of a sudden, they see a crater that, if they hit it, will take off the front of their car and could leave them in the side of the road, so they swerve.
We recently had this in South Shropshire: somebody swerved and ended up down a bank. A resident in Cleehill also sent me a photo of a car upturned from having swerved to avoid a pothole. I also had a personal experience: two Fridays ago, I finished speaking at an event in the evening. As I came out of Much Wenlock, I was the third person on the scene after a car had overturned, up towards Harley Bank. A woman was screaming, covered in blood. I thank the first two people on the scene. I gave first aid until the police got there. Although it was a serious incident, the woman who brought out a blanket from her house and did an excellent job, said, “Oh, don’t worry—it’s our MP. All will be good.” I was a medic trained in the military; I am not sure how many MPs can give first aid.
The point is that the local residents did a great job. The car was written off. The woman was lucky; it could have been far worse. I thank the ambulance crew and the police for the work they did. According to the lady who lives in that house, it was the third serious accident that she had seen there since August.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I am very glad that the hon. Member was able to provide support to his constituent in that really awful case. In Surrey, we have some of the busiest roads and they are absolutely littered with potholes. Longmead Road has over 30 potholes, and there is a secondary school on that road called Blenheim high school. A huge number of students cycle to that school, so this is frankly an accident waiting to happen. Does the hon. Member agree that, as well as fixing the potholes, having a central highways team to answer to councillors and residents might be a good way forward, so that we can better identify where all the potholes are?
Stuart Anderson
I thank the hon. Member for raising an important point. Between us, we are starting to see that we can deal with this issue in multiple ways, and I really hope the Minister will take them on board.
I launched my rural road safety campaign back in August 2024. I urged key partners to get involved in road safety issues and to take them really seriously. I even met the Morville speed group with the police and crime commissioner John Campion. It was impactful to see the issues that the speeding on the road was causing for everybody in Morville.
I have called for the Government’s new road safety strategy to prioritise rural areas more than it does. The previous Government’s safer roads fund provided over £185 million to improve safety on the country’s most dangerous A-roads. When I raised the matter previously, the Minister was unable to clarify whether the fund will be reinstated. The work must be undertaken by the Government. While the road safety strategy published in January identifies that rural roads are the least safe in terms of fatalities, it did not give any tangible results. It identified the problem but not the solution.
I have done my homework and provided a few solutions. Let us have a look at them. We have raised the issue of potholes and damage to vehicles, and to human life. As a few people have mentioned, councils are reportedly spending more money on fixing roads and potholes than they are getting from central Government. That is unsustainable. At the same time, the Government have watered down the formula to remove “remoteness” from rural areas. The removal of that one word has such a significant impact in South Shropshire, a 700-square-mile constituency. Remoteness is a key issue. We have also lost the rural services delivery grant. Those two decisions have taken millions of pounds out of South Shropshire, which has had a massive impact.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Not only have we lost all that funding for rural roads in places such as Beaconsfield, Marlow and south Buckinghamshire villages, but places such as Denham and Iver back up on to London and the ultra low emission zone. Transport for London gets a disproportionate amount of money for road paving, and all the London local authorities receive extra funding to get their roads paved. However, despite having rural roads directly outside the M25, we have basically no funding for the amount of road space we have to pave. That is disproportionate and should be equalised, to provide better funding to all rural counties.
Stuart Anderson
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that excellent point. We have to look at rural counties, which are not being given the fair consideration that they need. The Government are currently holding back almost £46 million, I believe, from Lib Dem-run Shropshire council, because it has not met their stringent criteria. The council has an amber rating at the moment, and we are not getting the money that we need. Long-term certainty is required to ensure a more proactive approach to road measures, rather than just short-term solutions.
A report published just today by the Annual Local Authority Road Maintenance survey states that the backlog of repairs in England and Wales is worth more than £18 billion. The Government need to provide longer-term highways maintenance funding for councils through to 2032, as the previous Government planned to do. That would provide councils with the certainty they need to effectively plan and undertake repairs to roads. The decisions made by this Labour Government have taken millions of pounds out of South Shropshire.
The second issue is that the Lib Dem-run council now fixes only about half the potholes that were fixed previously. As per its press release last week, the figure was 25,000 over the last year, but if we go back one, two or three years, then we were averaging 38,000 to 41,000.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Will the hon. Member give way on that point?
Helen Morgan
The hon. Member is making what is generally a good speech about rural funding, so it is a shame that he has made it party political. Does he not understand that the Conservative administration, under whose budget we are still operating, cut highways funding, including the proportion for preventive maintenance, for every year from 2022 to 2025? That will clearly have had a knock-on impact. If we do not maintain the roads, they will be in a much worse state at the end of that period.
Stuart Anderson
The hon. Member raises an important point—which I thought she might raise when I mentioned the local Lib Dem-run council in South Shropshire. For years, and under successive Governments, rural areas have not received the correct funding. That is not right; however, this is also about how the money is used. At the moment, the local council has an amber rating and is not fixing as many potholes as it should. At the moment, it is fixing only half the number done previously.
The other thing being raised with me that although potholes are being fixed, they come out and fix them on the Monday, and if there is a bit of rain on Tuesday and Wednesday, by Thursday the road is the same again. I have photos of people undertaking different measures to fix potholes that are completely unacceptable. Those roads are as bad at the end of the week as they were at the beginning.
We need to look at prevention. As a general rule, councils across the country are fixing more potholes than ever, but we are not seeing that in Shropshire, as per the local council’s numbers that I have quoted. Shropshire council continues to spend disproportionate amounts on reactive pothole repairs rather than on planned maintenance, because the Government have not given it the necessary long-term funding clarity. Evidence from the Road Emulsion Association shows that surface dressing extends life by around 10 to 15 years and uses 75% less bitumen and 80% less aggregate. It is campaigning for significantly increased investment in preventive road treatments and the maintenance of longer-term funding for councils. Every council will have to plan and will need clear visibility on the necessary funding.
As the Minister will know, developments in areas like artificial intelligence and autonomous robots could also start to future-proof how we deal with roads. I was delighted at the beginning of the year to see—as many others will have seen—the first autonomous vehicle able to identify cracks in the road and seal them early on, before they get worse. That is also reducing the number of lane closures, time invested and cost. As the RAC has stated—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has secured a debate that has attracted a lot of attention—I have 16 Members who have put in to speak. The rules say that I must call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 5.10 pm. At the moment, that means that those who have put in to speak will have a minute, or fractionally over. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to carry on with his speech, but I ask him to bear that in mind.
Stuart Anderson
Thank you, Mr Stringer; you raise a brilliant point.
Before I conclude, I would like the Minister to address the support or approval that local councils need for community action to go ahead to help parish councils to fix certain areas, as they have in Devon.
Residents in South Shropshire deserve better than the roads they have at the moment. The reduced funding for South Shropshire, by removing the remoteness factor and the rural services delivery grant, is beyond what is acceptable. It is having a huge impact, and I am not going to sit by and watch my residents put up with this any more.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. I am going to put a one-minute limit on speeches. If there are interventions, some people will simply not get in to speak.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) for securing the debate.
In my one minute, I would like to raise the fact that it is this Labour Government who have brought in record funding to tackle potholes. A record £7.3 billion has been confirmed for local authorities over the next four years to repair and renew roads and tackle potholes. That builds on the £1.6 billion allocated for the 2025-26 financial year alone—£500 million more than last year.
Following the publication of the red-amber-green ratings for road conditions, I launched a road conditions survey across my Luton South and South Bedfordshire constituency. I flag that in the more rural central Bedfordshire area in my constituency, respondents rated their local road conditions as only a two out of 10, and seven of the 10 most commonly mentioned problem roads were in the independent-led Central Bedfordshire council area. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how she will hold all local authorities to account to ensure that they spend their money on fixing our roads.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) for securing the debate.
The condition of rural roads is an ever-present issue for those of us who represent rural constituencies. In the Weald of Kent, where we have mile after mile of country lane used by massive lorries that have crossed the channel and are hoping to avoid traffic on the main routes, the situation is especially dire.
I visited the Falkland Islands on a parliamentary trip last year, where many of the roads have not even been fully laid. When I explained to the officer driving the car where I lived, he said, “Ah! I know your constituency. It’s the only place in the world I’ve been where the roads are worse than here.”
I sent a survey to every household in the Weald of Kent last year. Of the 1,500 responses I received, street works were mentioned more than 500 times. I do not have time today to talk about all the challenges that they pose, but the Transport Committee, of which I and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) are both members, published a report on that last year. I would love to hear an update from the Minister on the Government’s response to that report.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
For residents of north Oxfordshire, simple tasks such as driving to work or doing the weekly shop have become a daily slalom, swerving left and right to avoid potholes. We need to be very clear: that is a direct result of 14 years of largely Conservative Government neglect.
Between 2010 and 2024, Oxfordshire saw its real-terms spending power slashed by 15%. However, we must also address the administrative failure at County Hall. Under successive administrations, the focus has too often drifted towards urban traffic experiments in Oxford, while rural arterial routes have been left in a reactive state of decline.
The council’s own data is damning. In January 2025, 35% of category 2 defects—defined as serious, albeit not urgent—had missed their 28-day repair deadline. That represents 875 reports across the county. For many in north Oxfordshire, driving is a necessity, not a choice. The winding down of rural bus routes under previous Governments saw to that. That makes the record funding provided by this Labour Government even more vital, and I will not let my residents down.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) for this debate.
One particularly frustrating problem is the way in which roadworks are planned and co-ordinated, especially in rural areas. I am sure that many Members will recognise the situation where multiple sets of roadworks are scheduled at the same time, often in close proximity, making driving between villages and small towns extremely difficult, if not impossible. For residents, businesses and emergency services alike, the apparent lack of co-ordination can cause significant disruption, delays and unnecessary stress. Although I welcome investment in maintaining and improving our roads, that work must be properly planned and co-ordinated.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
My asks to the Minister on rural roads are clear. First, will she ensure that funding frameworks properly recognise rural roads so that roads connecting villages and rural communities are not consistently deprioritised?
Secondly, will she strengthen expectations on the quality and durability of repairs so that councils and contractors are judged on not just how many defects they fix, but whether those fixes last?
Thirdly, will she look at how Government could better support co-ordination across local authority boundaries so that roads that function as a single route are treated that way in practice?
Finally, will she ensure that preventive maintenance does not become a substitute for the more substantial resurfacing and reconstruction that many rural roads now clearly require?
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is frustrating, yet sadly not surprising, that roads across Keighley and Ilkley are facing so many challenges. I lay those challenges at the doorstep of Labour-run Bradford council, which has consistently shown disregard for the needs of the people across Keighley and Ilkley. That is backed up by a freedom of information request that I made in 2023, which found that over a six-year period, just £4.1 million of the district’s highways funding was spent in Keighley and Ilkley, equating to just 4% of the total funding over that period, yet Bradford East, Bradford West and Bradford South—all held by Labour MPs—received £19.2 million, £17.4 million and £13.1 million, respectively.
It is beyond belief that my constituents have received much less funding compared with other areas across the Bradford district. I would therefore like to understand what the Minister will do to hold to account local authorities that do not share their highways funding equally across the districts they represent.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
As the MP for Frome and East Somerset, I represent a semi-rural constituency and regularly drive around its more remote areas. Rural roads are often deprioritised because they carry less traffic, but, for the people who rely on them, they are absolutely essential. In many of these areas, public transport is limited or infrequent, meaning that residents have no alternative but to use these roads daily.
Just today, two constituents, Jacquie and John, wrote to me about a pothole near their home in Batcombe. They described what they called a monstrous pothole around two feet wide and up to a foot deep on the back roads between Batcombe and Bruton. It was not formed recently; it has been there for months. It is a serious hazard, and it is becoming an all too familiar sight for many rural residents.
Chronic underfunding has left rural roads behind, and the consequences are visible in every cracked surface and recurring pothole. While the Government have begun to address this issue, it is vital that funding is not only increased but sustained over the long term to tackle the decades-long backlog. Rural communities deserve the same quality of infrastructure as anywhere else, and constituents should not have to navigate dangerous roads or bear unnecessary costs.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Responsibility for maintaining roads in my area sits with the Reform-led Notts county council. It is all talk and no action and, frankly, residents are tired of excuses, particularly when they centre on funding. The reality is this: funding is increasing significantly through the Labour Government and the mayor, Claire Ward, rising from £18 million to almost £50 million. When the county council says it cannot act due to lack of funds, it simply does not stack up because the money is coming in.
Nottinghamshire residents deserve better. They deserve roads that are safe, properly maintained and fit for purpose, whether they live on a main road or a rural lane. The funding is there and the need is clear. It is time for Notts county council to deliver for them. I will continue to press it on behalf of my constituents until it does.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I cannot possibly do justice to the frustration of my residents about their local roads in one minute, but I will try my best. They contact me all the time to say how appalled they are at the quality of their local roads. The Labour Government fail to understand the challenges in rural communities, making the situation all the worse with their funding decisions since they came into office.
First, since my constituency has a lot of older people, the Government’s cutting off of our plans to reform social care spending have left us with huge financial burdens. Secondly, they cut the amount of money that was due to be given to East Sussex county council to pay for road improvements. Thirdly, to make it all the worse, they changed the funding formula to make it much harder for rural counties such as East Sussex and so many of the rural constituencies represented by Members in this Chamber to make ends meet and repair their roads. Will the Government finally start listening to rural MPs, councillors and councils, and sort these issues out once and for all?
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
Potholes are dangerous, they are expensive to fix, and they are everywhere. In the South Cotswolds, we know that rural areas are different. Rural roads are narrower, darker, faster and less forgiving, yet they risk being de-prioritised compared with urban areas. That cannot be right or fair. Chronic underfunding has left our council struggling to keep up. I commend Councillors Joe Harris, on the Gloucestershire side of my constituency, and Martin Smith, on the Wiltshire side, for their heroic efforts to turn the tide on potholes since coming to power last May.
I draw attention to the fact that potholes are exacerbated by standing water. Here our farmers have an important role to play, but farmers are not charities. If we want them to keep gullies and ditches clear to drain the water off the roads, we need to pay them to do so. Will the Minister please work with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that farmers are compensated for playing their part in reducing potholes?
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I guessed that others would raise the issue of potholes and poor safety today, so I want to make another point about the state of our rural roads. To put it bluntly, they are filthy. Driving through the countryside should be a reminder of much that is best and beautiful about our nation. Instead, in many places, it has been allowed to become an ever-present reminder of the sorry state of our country.
With plastic bags, wrappers, cans, bottles, traffic cones, sandbags, tyres, equipment left over after works are completed and gales carrying all sorts of other detritus, some of our rural roadside verges are starting to look like a vast, strung-out landfill. Frankly, if we cannot even manage to keep our roadsides clean, we are hardly a proper country at all. We cannot expect to instil civic pride in the next generation if this is how we leave the roads running through rural areas. We must invest in cleaning this up.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
A few days ago, I had a clinic in Ord bay, and a gentleman came to see me about the state of the potholes. As I drove home between Dundonnell and Corrieshalloch, bang—I had a flat tyre, and I put on record my gratitude to Mr Nigel Shaddick for helping me change my wheel. I know all about potholes. In late 2023, I had a constituent come to me who had hit a pothole, costing her a thousand quid’s worth of damage. She is a working mum—a crofter—and she depends on her car, as there is no public transport. It is really very difficult, and even today, the case is still not resolved.
Where does the blame lie? As my good friend from the Borders, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), said, the Scottish Government have a whole heap more dosh they have got from Westminster, yet precious little of it goes to the rural areas. As I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, we shall see what happens in May at the next election.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) is right to point out that the roads in Shropshire are in a terrible state after 16 years of Conservative management, so I am pleased that the Liberal Democrat administration has made fixing roads a key priority since coming into power 10 months ago. The council has created three new repair teams and dealt with 25,000 potholes since May, but during a wet and cold winter, it seemed like whack-a-mole, with new potholes appearing just as others are fixed. In January, 2,113 new potholes were reported, compared with just 1,200 the year before.
As Liberal Democrats, we have long called for increased investment in repairing our roads. That is particularly important in Shropshire, where the council manages nearly 3,200 miles of road, but has often received less funding per mile than many other councils. The Government’s additional dedicated roads funding is welcome, but at the same time, they are slashing our overall funding by 10%. That is no good when we need to have a maintenance programme in place, which is what the Liberal Democrats in Shropshire will be prioritising so that potholes do not appear in the first place.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Potholes are not just an inconvenience for my constituents; they are a costly safety risk that causes distress and frustration. Years of underfunding and a policy of managed decline by the previous Conservative county council administration have left Cambridgeshire facing an estimated £800 million backlog in repairs, of which £169 million is for the greater Cambridge area, home to Europe’s largest biomedical and life sciences cluster. One would think that that would have stimulated investment, but the Government allocated just £12 million to address that backlog.
To its credit, Cambridgeshire’s Liberal Democrat-run county council has more than doubled its investment in highways maintenance to £73 million. Results are starting to be seen in some areas, such as the recently resurfaced Granham’s Road. I drove along it last weekend, and it is smooth and safe—if the Government brought the money needed to local councils, that is what roads could be like. On behalf of my constituents, I ask the Minister: will she commit to resolving the £800 million backlog in Cambridgeshire to allow for the proper road resurfacing that my constituents deserve?
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Westmorland and Furness council has seen its budget cut by 31%. We are England’s largest and most rural council. Yet the Government have decided to defund rural communities, which is juxtaposed with the fact that we have the biggest number of visitors to our communities of anywhere in the country apart from London: we have 20 million visitors a year, alongside all the cars that use our roads. We have 3,000 miles of roads, including the Kirkstone pass, which has been closed since November because of expensive work that needs to be done to connect the communities around England’s two biggest lakes, Windermere and Ullswater. We have 1,000 historical bridges, including Eamont Bridge, where Æthelstan created England in 927. We are proud to be the custodians of England’s Lake District national park, and we are appalled that our visitors, and more importantly our residents, are being thrown to the wolves by a Government who have decided to defund rural England.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on securing this debate. This has been a year of records for Taunton, Somerset and the Somerset levels: the Environment Agency reported the wettest week on record for at least 30 years, and in January, the River Tone and the River Parrett received 207% of the long-term average for January rainfall.
The result of that was a massive and record reporting of potholes. One Blagdon Hill resident pointed out to us that the problem goes back 10 years to the period when the Conservatives running the county council reduced funding for highways. At the same time, the Government have reduced Somerset’s funding by removing the remoteness uplift of £20 million per year. The record I want to finish my speech on is that the council has just approved £160 million to be spent over the next three years on highways and potholes. That is a record amount, and at no other time have so many potholes been filled by Liberal Democrat councillors.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
In the last 20 years, traffic on locally managed major roads has fallen by around 5%, yet damage has never been worse. Why? Because rural routes are carrying traffic they were never designed for. Heavy goods vehicles are increasingly using villages such as Cowfold, Colgate and Lower Beeding in my constituency as rat runs. In the past five years, the A272 corridor, which has surprisingly been classified as a “primary route” despite slicing through a tiny, narrow village, has seen 79 casualties.
What should happen? First, the coming fair funding settlement will penalise rural councils for making the mistake of being rural, and we need to change that. Secondly, villages need greater freedom to set their own speed limits, reflecting the risks on narrow rural lanes for pedestrians, riders and drivers. Thirdly, the Government must intervene to ensure that commercial HGV satnavs follow the best routes, not simply the shortest ones.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) for introducing this very important topic. He made some important points in his speech, and he was on to a strong one when he talked about the importance of remoteness and rurality as a factor in local authority costs that should be taken into account with funding. As we have heard from several hon. Members, the Government’s changes to local government finances are going to have a hard impact on rural areas that are already struggling with this critical issue.
We have heard from hon. Members from many counties today. I am going to list them all, because it illustrates the national nature of the issue, although we all have the temptation to think that it is down to which parties run local authorities and which do not. We have heard two examples each from Shropshire and Sussex; examples from Surrey, Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire, Kent; two each from Wiltshire, Yorkshire, Somerset; and examples from Nottinghamshire, East Sussex, Gloucestershire, Hertfordshire, the Scottish highlands, Cambridgeshire and Cumbria. That is an enormously diverse geographical list and shows the sheer scale of the problem that we are facing. In my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, I have repeated examples of major problems with roads that really drive people mad, particularly the A417 through Mellors Garage, Challow station, Stanford, and Shellingford crossroads. There are also problems on the A417 through Upton and Blewbury, and on many roads in Didcot. They are just a few examples.
Many residents look to the current council for responsibility, but the reality is that this is a long-term issue and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) mentioned, it is the legacy of the previous Conservative Administration who, in Oxfordshire, implemented a “managed decline” policy in 2014. That was partly driven by national funding constraints. Today’s debate proves that this is a nationwide crisis and that we should treat it as such.
Poorly lit, often narrow and fast rural roads are far more dangerous than urban ones. According to road safety charity Brake, road users are three times more likely to be killed on a rural road than an urban road. That is an indictment of the previous Conservative Government’s utter neglect of Britain’s roads, with the total maintenance backlog now standing at more than £18 billion. The 2026 annual local authority road maintenance survey estimates that 16% of the local road network in England and Wales is “in poor condition”. It is costing road users dearly, with research suggesting that UK drivers are paying, on average, more than £300 a year to repair damage caused by potholes, and rural drivers highlight worse conditions than urban areas.
It is not just drivers. A 2022 survey by Cycling UK found that
“21% of cyclists have been involved in an accident because of a pothole”
and among those, 22% suffered a personal injury; 88% of riders reported having to take a dangerous manoeuvre to avoid a road defect, and 63% experienced bike damage due to poor road surfaces. The current road maintenance guidance focuses primarily on when defects damage motor vehicles—a criterion that fails to capture the far lower threshold at which cyclists can be catastrophically harmed. Perhaps adoption of that higher standard for repairs could also move us closer to a greater focus on prevention and preventive works.
This issue relates to a wider crisis in local government finances, with the cost of social care and special educational needs provision accounting for an ever-growing proportion of local authority budgets. In that context, the Labour Government’s decision to cut Oxfordshire county council’s central Government funding by £24.1 million over three years is a grave concern. Clearly, money is a big part of the problem we face, but perhaps the Minister can share what the Government are doing to learn from other countries and to look at better approaches to road design, maintenance and repair.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
A key point to make is that potholes are often a symptom that roads have not been resurfaced at the right time. In reality, we have billions of pounds in community infrastructure levy funds that are sitting across the country, often just earning interest. They are not being invested in resurfacing roads or our drainage system. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we can better spend that community infrastructure levy money and ensure that it is put into roads? That often means making sure that—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. I noticed that the hon. Lady arrived very late to the debate. It is not allowed, particularly in a massively oversubscribed debate like this, to come in and intervene.
Olly Glover
Councils certainly can do more to better spend the community infrastructure levy, but that partly takes account of the wildly complicated planning system and the negotiations that are needed with developers for both that and section 106.
Perhaps the Minister could share what the Government are doing to learn from other countries and to look at better approaches to road design, maintenance and repair. From my travels in, for example, Ireland, Germany and the Netherlands, potholes are either unknown or very rare. If I can briefly deviate from my usual tendencies towards pessimism and cynicism, and lead my colleagues to wonder about my wellbeing, in an ideal world I wonder whether this debate shows that we should try to move away from pretending that the main issue is who, from a party perspective, runs our councils. It is far more about central Government versus local government, how our local government is structured and funded, and unsustainable local government expectations, given the funding that they are provided. We need significant reform on that, so that we can get our roads in a better place.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on securing an incredibly important debate for all of us who represent rural communities. If there is one issue that unites motorists across our country, and certainly across Buckinghamshire, it is that our roads are simply not good enough.
In rural areas, roads are not a convenience; they are a necessity. They connect people to work, school, healthcare and family, yet too often, as we have heard this afternoon, those roads are deteriorating before our eyes. The national picture is stark. As others have said, the backlog for road repairs now stands at £18.6 billion. Local rural roads are resurfaced, on average, only once every 90 years. That is not maintenance; it is neglect.
The AA recorded over 613,000 pothole-related call-outs in 2025, an average of 1,679 every single day. The Royal Automobile Club has reported a sharp surge this year, with February alone seeing more than 6,000 pothole-related breakdown reports. Meanwhile, compensation claims to councils have risen by over 90% in just three years, yet the vast majority are rejected. Motorists are paying twice: once through their taxes and again through their repair bills.
First, we must recognise the growing strain on our road network. Much of our local infrastructure, particularly in rural counties like Buckinghamshire, was never designed for the volume and type of traffic that the roads now carry. Many roads began life as literal cart tracks, without the deep foundations needed to withstand modern use.
The state-mandated transition to battery electric cannot be divorced from infrastructure realities. Electric vehicles are significantly heavier than their petrol and diesel equivalents, particularly in goods vehicles. The physics is simple: as weight increases, the damage inflicted on road surfaces increases exponentially. Yet there has been very little acknowledgement from Government of how the increased wear will be managed, or how dealing with it will be funded.
We must also consider the impact of major infrastructure projects, of which we are seeing the misery at first hand in my county. High Speed 2 has brought thousands of additional heavy goods vehicle movements on to rural roads that were never designed for such use. The result is roads being churned up at an alarming rate. Too often, the burden of repairing that damage falls on local authorities and local taxpayers, which cannot be right. Where infrastructure projects cause damage, they must fix it. It is incumbent on HS2, as much as other projects, to fix what it breaks. We have seen that it can be done: projects such as East West Rail have resurfaced rural roads where construction traffic has taken its toll. HS2 must follow that example.
On the question of funding, in Buckinghamshire there is a £210 million road repairs backlog, alongside significant financial pressures on the council. Despite that, the council carried out over 30,000 repairs last year, and even released additional funding from reserves to try to tackle the problem, finding a highways repair budget of £120 million. But that is not sustainable as the Labour Government take £44 million of spending power away from Buckinghamshire.
The situation in Buckinghamshire is not unique. As we have heard from places such as Oxfordshire, councils across the country are repairing millions of potholes each year, yet the backlog continues to grow. Even with increased national funding, the gap between what is needed and what is delivered remains substantial. We cannot continue to pile pressure on to a system that is already at breaking point, so what is needed is clear: we need honesty about the scale of the challenge and sustained long-term spending that matches the backlog, not short-term sticking plasters. We are beyond pothole repair and into an era when we need full resurfacing.
We need fair funding for areas facing significant infrastructure pressures; all too often it is rural communities that are being let down. We need accountability so that those who damage our roads pay to repair them. For my constituents, and rural communities across the country, driving today feels less like a journey and more like navigating a patchwork obstacle course.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Minister, if you could, please leave a minute or so at the end of your contribution for the Member in charge to wind up.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
I shall attempt to do that. It is a pleasure to serve, with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on securing today’s debate on the condition of roads in rural areas.
First, let me respond to some of the hon. Member’s points. He suggested that his local authority, Shropshire council, has seen its funding for local roads maintenance cut. It has not. In 2024-25, Shropshire received £23.2 million. For 2025-26, the figure is £33.7 million—more money to fix more roads and to undertake preventive maintenance.
The hon. Member suggested that Shropshire council does not have certainty of future funding. It does. For the first time, councils have multi-year funding for local roads maintenance. We have given them four years of funding, specifically to allow them to plan ahead.
The hon. Member also suggested that Shropshire will not receive its incentive funding. There is no reason to believe that is the case. Last year, only one local highway authority out of 154 did not receive its incentive payments. If an authority does what we have asked of it, there is no danger of it not receiving that incentive payment.
Lilian Greenwood
Let me make a bit more progress and then I will, of course, come back to the hon. Member.
We all recognise that rural Britain depends on reliable, safe and resilient roads. When those roads fall into poor condition or suffer flooding, the impacts on rural residents and businesses—often with limited alternative routes—can be significant. As numerous Members highlighted, potholes are costly and dangerous to drivers, bikers, cyclists and pedestrians.
Lilian Greenwood
I will not just now. I am going to make some progress.
There is no question but that severe and persistent bad weather has taken a real toll on highways in all parts of the country. The very wet start to 2026 has made repairs more difficult and maintenance windows shorter. Local authorities in many areas have been working around the clock to make emergency repairs and keep local people safe.
But weather alone does not explain the scale of the problem. We must also be clear about the historical underfunding of our local roads networks. The Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), talked about neglect, and he is right to do so, because that is precisely what happened under the previous Government. Years and years of short-term funding settlements have made it difficult for councils to plan ahead, invest in preventive maintenance or build resilience into their networks.
Lilian Greenwood
Not right now.
Rural residents are all too familiar with the reality, which is why this Government have taken decisive action. We are providing record funding for local highways maintenance, supporting councils not only to repair damage caused by recent winters but to break the cycle of deterioration that has built up over more than a decade.
Sean Woodcock
I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the steps the Government are taking to make up for the years of underfunding of council highways by the Opposition parties. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson tried to defend Oxfordshire county council; will the Minister address what that council has done? I get complaints from constituents about the quality of the work. The newly repaired Stratford Road in Banbury has already disintegrated to expose under-street cables.
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is right to raise his concerns. It is of course the case that, where local authorities undertake repairs, we want them to be proper, permanent repairs that do not immediately deteriorate.
Lilian Greenwood
The funding formula for local roads maintenance has not changed under this Government, and all local authorities, urban and rural, are receiving additional funding—an additional £500 million for local roads maintenance this year—as part of the largest uplift to the highways maintenance block in England’s history. Over the next four years, we are delivering a record £7.3 billion funding package, giving local authorities the long-term certainty they have asked for time and again. This is not a one-off: it is a sustained shift in how we fund roads, designed to empower councils to move from reactive repairs to genuinely strategic network management.
Lilian Greenwood
Not right now. The Transport Committee in the previous Parliament specifically asked for that change.
We are also making sure that taxpayers know how money is being used. Every local highway authority is now required to publish clear, accessible information on the condition of its roads, its maintenance plans and how it is investing the uplift it has received. That goes precisely to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) on accountability.
The transparency reports help residents to understand what is being delivered, and ensure that authorities remain accountable for the outcomes they achieve. The reports are a tool for public confidence and a driver of improvement, and there are already encouraging signs. Last year, for the first time since 2017, the proportion of local roads receiving maintenance treatment increased.
Alongside better reporting, we are updating the well-managed highway infrastructure code of practice, which is the cornerstone guidance for risk-based asset management. We want to ensure that it reflects new technologies, climate adaptation needs and modern expectations of highway resilience. The UK Roads Leadership Group and industry experts are leading the comprehensive refresh. We are working with AtkinsRéalis, which has 20 representatives in the World Road Association, so I hope we are learning from the international best practice raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). We expect the new guidance to be issued later this year.
The focus on improving guidance goes hand in hand with strengthening the capability of the sector. Last summer, we provided funding for the UK Roads Leadership Group to deliver a programme of climate resilience workshops for local highways authorities. The sessions brought together practitioners and experts to strengthen emergency response and to improve preparedness for the increasingly severe weather and climate-driven hazards we face, supporting our wider climate adaptation strategy for transport, which was published in December.
As we improve resilience, we are also helping councils to adopt new and innovative approaches to managing their networks. Rural authorities are directly benefiting from the Government’s £30 million Live Labs 2 programme, which tests new ways to decarbonise local highways. Maintenance projects include a Devon county council scheme that is using the A382 upgrade to trial new materials, digital technology and working practices to cut emissions across construction and operations. In the East Riding of Yorkshire, I have seen for myself how teams are exploring low-carbon street-lighting alternatives such as solar-powered studs and highly reflective markings, to reduce reliance on traditional lighting on rural routes.
Similarly, I have seen local authorities across the country using new machinery and new technology to improve the quality of their road repairs. In West Sussex and South Gloucestershire, the Greenprint project is developing and testing sustainable construction materials with direct application to mixed rural networks.
To conclude, this Government will continue to stand behind rural communities and the councils that serve them. We will continue to invest at record levels and to support local authorities to improve and maintain their roads, so that every rural resident, no matter where they live, benefits from a network that is safer, stronger and built for the future.
Stuart Anderson
I thank the Minister for winding up, and I want to respond to two of the points she made. We talked about the funding, but we were calling for funding up to 2032, not 2030; and the incentive payment that was withheld is still withheld—it is not with Shropshire council, so it cannot plan when it does not know that the money will come through.
Stuart Anderson
I would, but I do not have the time, so I will talk to the Minister afterwards. I invite her to South Shropshire to see the roads, many of which are not suitable for driving many cars on. Whatever plan she outlined, it is not suitable to my constituency. The rural services delivery grant really hurt South Shropshire. The removal of “remoteness” in respect of local government funding is absolutely hammering us. We are not able to provide the services that our constituents need. Roads are now in a state, and people are cut off and remote. The roads are in a state and I invite the Minister to come to see them. They are in a bad way, with an impact on cars, business, the economy and safety. This is a major issue, as we heard throughout the debate. We need more funding in South Shropshire to sort out the problem.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the condition of roads in rural areas.